The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

Use of fuzzy
Use of fuzzy AHP for evaluating AHP
the benefits of
information-sharing decisions in a
263
supply chain
Selçuk Perçin
Department of Business Administration,
The Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a good insight into the use of fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process (fuzzy AHP) approach that is a multi-criteria decision-making methodology in
evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decision problems.
Design/methodology/approach – In this study, the integration of AHP with the fuzzy synthetic
extent analysis method (fuzzy AHP) is proposed in evaluating the benefits of information-sharing
decision problems as a framework to guide managers.
Findings – Findings demonstrate that the customer requirement and operational information
alternatives are the preferred key decisions, which all supply chain partners might agree to share with
one another. Further, it can also be concluded that the planning and financial information alternatives
have almost the same importance.
Research limitations/implications – Fuzzy AHP is a highly complex methodology and requires
more numerical calculations in assessing composite priorities than the traditional AHP and hence it
increases the effort. In addition, fuzzy methodology could be extended with the other multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) methods such as Analytical Network Process (ANP), TOPSIS, ELECTRE
and DEA techniques in solving such a problem.
Originality/value – There is a lack of research in the literature to deal directly with the uncertainty
of human judgements in evaluating the benefits of various information-sharing decisions in a supply
chain. Therefore, fuzzy AHP is an appropriate methodology to select the various types of information
and has the ability to be used as a decision-making analysis tool since it handles uncertain and
imprecise data. In addition, the paper is especially of interest to managers as they make decisions on
which types of information they should share with their supply chain partners.
Keywords Supply chain management, Analytical hierarchy process, Decision making
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and background

Supply chains are now more aptly described as “supply networks”, or “supply webs”
and can involve extremely complex configurations. These complex configurations,
which are usually ranging from the dyadic chain to the multi-channel network
(Samaddar et al., 2006; McLaren et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2003), require different Journal of Enterprise Information
information needs and create different environments for information sharing. Management
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2008
There are many factors that may affect the information-sharing capabilities of pp. 263-284
partners, such as product and market structure, inter-organizational information q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0398
systems (IOISs) infrastructure, relationships among partners, intra-organizational DOI 10.1108/17410390810866637
JEIM coordination structures (centralization, decentralization and distributed), and single
21,3 and multiple-sourcing (Shore and Venkatachalam, 2003). However, evaluating these
factors require focus on two key parameters. They include collaborative relationships
and IOISs that contribute information-sharing (Lee and Whang, 2000; Shore and
Venkatachalam, 2003).
Supply networks heavily depend on participants’ relationships and
264 information-sharing capabilities between the various organizations. The closeness of
relationships between the various parties through the network may range from
adversarial relationships to partnership or collaborative relationships (Mentzer et al.,
2000b). However, collaborative relationships are characterized by greater information
exchange than adversarial relationships. This increases the need for integration and
coordination of activities across organization boundaries. Thus, collaborative supply
networks bridge the barrier between partners by focusing on the efficient exchange of
information.
Collaborative supply networks are examining the value of information-sharing not
only for opportunities to reduce inventory level, and supply chain costs but also for
opportunities to improve the flow of goods, services and information and serve their
customers better, which benefits the overall network (McLaren et al., 2002; Mentzer
et al., 2000a; Li et al., 2006; Samaddar et al., 2006). However, a critical issue is how much
information can be shared between partners of a supply network. Even though, IOISs,
such as extranets, electronic data interchange (EDI), and electronic marketplaces
provide the ability to share information easily, firms may not share information for
various reasons (Premkumar, 2000). Information-sharing brings concerns of security,
privacy, costs, and intellectual property (Li et al., 2006). Therefore, there are strong
disincentives to share information unless supply chain managers are able to
understand that shared information is equally beneficial to all parties of the supply
network.
A number of studies have attempted to evaluate the information-sharing problems
with the use of various theoretical and analytical based models. In the theoretical
studies, total benefits of information-sharing decisions in collaborative supply
networks are generally derived by using IOISs. Li et al. (2006) studied the effect of
IOISs strategies on firm level performance under both stable and volatile market
conditions. Samaddar et al. (2006) presented a theoretical framework to contribute the
current research on inter-organizational information-sharing and design of supply
networks. Premkumar (2000) provided an integrated perspective of supply chain
management and inter-organizational systems and showed that all organizations in the
supply chain could gain benefits from sharing information by reduction of supply and
demand uncertainties. Huang et al. (2003) reviewed the impacts of sharing information
on supply chain dynamics and concluded that the leveraging information can be
beneficial to all supply chain partners involved. Anand and Mendelson (1997)
discussed the relationship between intra-organizational coordination structures and
information-sharing and applied it to a firm that faces demand uncertainty in multiple
horizontal markets. In the analytical studies, some of the mathematical approaches are
developed to understand the behavior of the established models and the effects of
information-sharing on supply chain performance. In a statistical/probabilistic
approaches by Lee et al. (1997a, 1997b) they concluded that sharing real demand
information across the supply chain members reduces the demand variability
(bullwhip effect) and uncertainty. Yu et al. (2001) investigated the benefits of supply Use of fuzzy
chain partnerships with information-sharing and concluded that both the retailer and AHP
manufacturer can obtain performance improvement with an increasing level of
information-sharing. Moinzadeh (2002) studied the benefits of information-sharing in a
supply chain and showed how the supplier can benefit from using information about the
retailer’s inventory levels. In addition, Chen (1998), Cachon and Fisher (2000), Lee et al.
(2000), and Gavirneni et al. (1999) used stochastic and capacitated models to evaluate the 265
supply chain performance with emphasizing on the benefits of information-sharing. In
these studies, researchers have investigated various types of information such as
capacity, inventory levels, demand, and costs. Recently, researchers have attempted to
use simulation (Zhao and Xie, 2002; Zhao et al., 2002) and fuzzy based decision making
approaches (Shore and Venkatachalam, 2003; Chantrasa, 2005) in order to evaluate the
information-sharing potential of supply chain partners.
It can be seen from the literature that most of the analytical studies are at conceptual
level, and focused mainly on movement of materials and inventory cost savings through
collaborative supply networks with optimization and simulation of activities. In addition,
most of the studies focused only on sharing of specific type of information such as
demand forecast, inventory information, and operational information. However, many
information-sharing decision problems can not be expressed by analytical models and
algorithms, or they may lack complete or certain data. In addition, as shown in the
published literature, there is a lack of research to deal directly with evaluating the
benefits of various types of information shared by the participating firms. The
availability of multiple criteria and the involvement of decision makers will expand
information-sharing decision problems from one to several dimensions, and hence it will
increase the complexity and effort. For this reason, we need a new approach, which could
handle multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problems, and to support these types of
complex evaluation problems (Büyüközkan, 2004). Therefore, the integration of
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with the fuzzy synthetic extent analysis method
(fuzzy AHP) (Chang, 1992; 1996) is proposed. Fuzzy AHP is a relatively new
methodology introduced by Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) that extends the AHP for
decision making to cases conducted in uncertain and fuzzy environment. So, it has the
ability to deal with the uncertainty of human judgments in evaluating the benefits of
information-sharing decisions in a supply chain. Thus, the objective of this paper is to
present the employment of the fuzzy AHP approach to evaluate the benefits of
information-sharing decision problems. In addition, understanding the benefits of
information-sharing may help managers to make decisions on which types of
information they should share with their supply chain partners. Furthermore, the use of
proposed model is illustrated in Turkish manufacturing firms.
The paper is organized in five sections. The importance of selection criteria and
information-sharing decisions in a supply chain is explained first. The third section
describes briefly the fuzzy AHP methodology. The fourth section discusses the
application of the fuzzy AHP to information-sharing decisions. Finally, the last section
contains some concluding remarks and perspectives.

2. Selection criteria and information-sharing decisions

Evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions is not a well defined or
structured problem in literature. As stated earlier, apart from the research studies on
JEIM information-sharing decisions to date, to our knowledge, only Chantrasa (2005) and
21,3 Shore and Venkatachalam (2003) proposed a fuzzy based decision making approach for
information-sharing decisions. However, evaluating the benefits of
information-sharing decisions has some special characteristics. First, the benefits of
information-sharing decisions are intangible in nature. Second, different decision
makers assign the benefits of information-sharing decisions and their importance
266 differently. For this reason, these benefits can only be measured subjectively.
Therefore, an appropriate evaluation methodology and evaluation criteria have to be
identified.
In this paper, fuzzy AHP methodology is used to identify evaluation criteria for
information-sharing decision problem. For this purpose, we have conducted a literature
survey (mainly based on the studies of Muckstadt et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2003;
Angerhofer and Angelides, 2006; Samaddar et al., 2006). Then, three different levels of
information-sharing benefits criteria, namely strategic, managerial, and operational
benefits, are identified through the related references, which will be detailed in the
following parts. The benefits criteria are further refined by interviewing a group of 13
managers (i.e. decision makers) from different Turkish manufacturing firms regarding
the logistics, production or information technology management. Then, the focus shifts
to partners and their willingness to reveal which information should be shared in order
to provide long-term success for collaborative relationships. Four decision alternatives,
namely operational, planning, customer requirement, and financial information, are
chosen to evaluate information-sharing decisions. Then, the influences of various
benefits criteria on the goal criteria have been evaluated. The goal of our framework is
to evaluate the degree to which types of information should be shared with supply
chain partners for Turkish manufacturing firms.

2.1 Strategic benefits (SB)

Strategic benefits accrue over an extended period of time, and capture the long-term
benefits of information-sharing. It requires an assessment of the direct gains arising
from collaboration, market share, conflict resolution, and new product introduction.
2.1.1 Facilitate supply chain collaboration (FC):. Information is a basic enabler for
tight coordination (Lee and Whang, 2000). Information-sharing through collaborative
supply networks creates profits, strengthens competitive position and enhances the
value of the company (Lee, 2000).
2.1.2 Increase market share (IMS). Increasing market share will become more
important because of the increasing trend toward collaborative relationships being
driven by IOISs.
2.1.3 Enhance conflict resolution (EC). Organizations in a supply chain can work
closely for the same goal only if the associated risks and benefits of information
integration efforts are equitably shared (Lee, 2000). With the increasing trust and
dependency, partners can gain more sharing of information, ideas, and technology
(Mentzer et al., 2000a).
2.1.4 Increase new product introduction (INP). As product life cycles shorten, the
right products must be developed and successfully launched in ever shorter
timeframes in order to remain competitive (Lambert and Cooper, 2000). Thus, the
success of the company depends on effective management across the supply chain of
both new product introduction and old product phase-out (Lee, 2000).
2.2 Managerial benefits (MB) Use of fuzzy
Managerial benefits arise from planning issues that are related to medium term (about AHP
two weeks to six months) (Huang et al., 2003). We use gains in communication,
capacity allocation, and make better decision on forecasting, planning and resource
control as the key measures of managerial benefits.
2.2.1 Increase communication (IC). Achieving supply chain efficiency requires
sharing of accurate and timely information (Lee, 2000). Advances in information 267
technology and IOISs accelerate real-time information-sharing, collaboration, and
decision making among companies.
2.2.2 Increase capacity allocation decision (CD). By using the shared information,
each supply chain partner can make better decisions on capacity allocation so that the
supply chain dynamics can be optimized (Huang et al., 2003).
2.2.3 Make better decision on forecasting, planning and resource control (FPR).
Collaborative supply networks involve joint decision making among the partners in the
areas of collaborative planning, forecasting and resource control (McLaren et al., 2002).
The flow of enhanced information through the collaborative networks enables firms to
decrease information delay and to improve forecast accuracy (Angerhofer and
Angelides, 2006).

2.3 Operational benefits (OB)

Operational benefits deal with daily events in a supply chain. The availability of
lead-time, cost, inventory, and scheduling information is crucial to gain operational
benefits.
2.3.1 Reduce inventory level (IL). The sharing of inventory information may lead to
lower inventories and inventory costs and at the same time increased flexibility
(Angerhofer and Angelides, 2006).
2.3.2 Reduce lead time (LT). It defines the time that is required from the time an
order has begun its production until the time the order is read for shipment. The
general conclusion from the literature is that the longer the lead time, the smaller the
benefit of information-sharing (Huang et al., 2003).
2.3.3 Reduce supply chain costs (SC). Shorter product life cycles and greater product
variety increases the supply chain costs. However, enhanced collaboration and
information-sharing can lower supply chain related costs and improve responsiveness
within a chain of organizations.
2.3.4 Improve production/distribution scheduling (IPD). Collaboration and enhanced
information-sharing improves joint planning of production/distribution scheduling
that creates sustainable value for all involved (McLaren et al., 2002).

2.4 Information-sharing decisions

An important characteristic of any collaborative relationships is the amount and type
of information that is shared between the partners. Lee et al. (2000) listed a number of
general classifications of information that are currently being shared across a wide
range of industries and firms. These include the inventory level/position, sales
data/demand information, order status for tracking/tracing, sales forecast, and
production/delivery schedule. Huang et al. (2003) proposed six categories of production
information include product, process, resource, inventory, order, and planning in the
analysis of information sharing.
JEIM However, the types of information included in the analysis have been grouped into
21,3 four categories: operational, planning, customer requirement, and financial
information. Operational information involves determining production schedules,
order status for tracking/tracing, return status, volume of operations and inventory
levels. Planning type of information is comprised of sales forecasts, sales data/demand
information, promotional plans and production plans. Customer requirement
268 information includes a clear statement of the customer requirements relating to
product desires, customer satisfaction, product availability, service requirements,
delivery, and invoices, etc. Financial performance indices are very important
information measures that allow companies to know the real benefits of sharing
information (Huang et al., 2003). The common financial information measures are sales
growth rate, profit, and return on investment, etc.
We can present the links between the benefits of information-sharing and
information-sharing decision alternatives. In using AHP to model a decision problem,
the first step is to structure the hierarchy. The goal of our model is to evaluate the
benefits of information-sharing decisions in a supply chain. The second level shows the
criteria that must be satisfied to fulfill the overall goal. The general criteria level
involved three major criteria: strategic benefits, managerial benefits, and operational
benefits. Each of these in turn needed further decomposition into specific items in the
third level. As an example, strategic benefits was decomposed into four sub-criteria,
which are facilitate supply chain collaboration, increase market share, enhance conflict
resolution, and increase new product introduction. We also located increase
communication, increase capacity allocation decision, and make better decision on
forecasting, planning, and resource control in the third level of the hierarchy under
managerial benefits. The four sub-criteria were also included for operational benefits in
the third level. These are reducing inventory level, reducing lead time, reducing supply
chain costs, and improving production/distribution scheduling. The lowest level of the
hierarchy comprised of the decision alternatives. In this study, the different
information-sharing decision alternatives are operational information, planning
information, customer requirement information, and financial information. To show
the problem of evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions, we make use
of the hierarchy illustrated with Figure 1.

3. Fuzzy AHP methodology

The paper proposes a fuzzy AHP approach to represent decision makers’ comparison
judgments and to decide the final priority of different information-sharing decision
alternatives. In the following, the literature review on fuzzy AHP methodology is firstly
given and then the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP that will be used for the
application of this method on information-sharing decision problem is presented.

3.1 Literature review for fuzzy AHP

Fuzzy AHP methodology is designed to an alternative selection and justification
problem by integrating the concept of fuzzy set theory and hierarchical structure
analysis. The use of fuzzy methodology allows the decision maker to incorporate both
qualitative and quantitative data into the decision model. For this reason, decision
makers usually feel more confident to give interval judgments rather than fixed value
judgments. In this approach, triangular fuzzy numbers are used for the preferences of
 Use of fuzzy
AHP

269

Figure 1.
The hierarchy of the
information sharing
decision problem

one criterion over another, and then by using the extent analysis method, the synthetic
extent value of the pairwise comparison is calculated.
The earliest work in fuzzy AHP appeared in Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983),
which compared fuzzy ratios described by triangular membership functions. Later,
using geometric mean, Buckley (1985) determined fuzzy priorities of comparison ratios
whose membership functions were trapezoidal. By modifying the Buckley’s (1985)
method, Boender et al. (1989), presented a more robust approach to the normalization of
the local priorities. According to the Boender et al. (1989), the triangular approximation
of fuzzy operations provides fuzzy solutions with much smaller spread than Buckley’s
(1985) method. After that, Ruoning and Xiaoyen (1992) constructed the fuzzy judgment
matrix by using continuous judgment scale and emphasizing that every element of this
matrix can be presented by a positive bounded closed fuzzy number. Chang (1996)
introduced a new approach for handling fuzzy AHP, with the use of triangular fuzzy
numbers for pairwise comparison scale of fuzzy AHP and the use of extent analysis
method for the synthetic extent values of the pairwise comparisons. Cheng (1996)
proposed another algorithm for evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy
AHP based on grade value of membership function. Kahraman et al. (1998) developed a
fuzzy weighted evaluation method using objective and subjective measures. Deng
(1999) presented a fuzzy approach for dealing with qualitative multi-criteria analysis
problems in a simple and straightforward manner. Lee et al. (1999) introduced the
concept of comparison interval scales and proposed a methodology based on stochastic
optimization to achieve global consistency and to accommodate the fuzzy nature of the
comparison process. Cheng et al. (1999) proposed a new method for evaluating weapon
systems by AHP based on the linguistic variable weight. Zhu et al. (1999) discussed the
extent analysis method and applied some practical examples of fuzzy AHP. Leung and
Cao (2000) proposed a fuzzy consistency definition with consideration of a tolerance
deviation for alternatives in fuzzy AHP. More recently, Kuo et al. (2002) developed a
JEIM decision support system for locating a new convenience store. Mikhailov (2002) applied
21,3 the AHP method in conjunction with fuzzy preference programming approach for
partnership selection problem in establishment of virtual enterprises. Yu (2002)
incorporated an absolute term linearization approach and a fuzzy rating expression into
an AHP-goal programming (GP) model for solving group decision making fuzzy AHP
problems by employing the property of GP to treat a fuzzy AHP problem (Büyüközkan,
270 2004). Recently, fuzzy AHP has been extensively applied in the literature. Some
examples of these applications include computer integrated manufacturing systems
justification and selection, quality function deployment, catering service companies
evaluation, e-marketplace selection, software development strategy selection, new
product development process, technology management, project risk evaluation, and
global supplier selection (Bozdağ et al., 2003; Kwong and Bai, 2003; Kahraman et al.,
2004; Büyüközkan, 2004; Büyüközkan et al., 2004; Büyüközkan and Feyzioglu, 2004;
Erensal et al., 2006; Tüysüz and Kahraman, 2006; Chan and Kumar, 2007).

3.2 Extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP

The outlines of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP (Chang, 1992, 1996; Zhu et al.,
1999) can be summarized as follows:
Let X ¼ {x1 , x2, . . . , xn} be an object set, and U ¼ {u1 , u2, . . . , um} be a goal set.
According to the Chang’s extent analysis method, each object is taken and extent
analysis for each goal gi is performed, respectively. Therefore, m extent analysis
values for each object can be obtained and shown as follows:

M 1gi ; M 2gi ; . . . ; M m
gi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n ð1Þ

where all the M jgi (j ¼ 1; 2, . . . ,m) are triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) whose
parameters are l, m, and u. They are the least possible value, the most possible value,
and the largest possible value respectively. A TFN is represented as (l,m,u). The steps
of the extent analysis method can be given as follows (Büyüközkan, 2004):
3.2.1 Step 1. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the ith object is
defined as:
" #21
X
m n X
X m
Si ¼ M jgi ^ M jgi ð2Þ
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
X
m
To obtain M jgi , we perform the fuzzy addition operation of m extent analysis values
j¼1
for a particular matrix such that:
!
X
m X
m X
m X
m
M jgi ¼ l ij ; mij ; uij ð3Þ
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1

hP i21
n Pm j
and to obtain i¼1 i¼1 M gi , we perform the fuzzy addition operation of
N jgi ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ values such that:
 !
X
n X
m X
n X
n X
n Use of fuzzy
M jgi ¼ l ij ; mij ; uij ð4Þ AHP
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
X
m Xm X
m
where l i ¼ l y ; mi ¼ mij ; ui ¼ uij
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
271
Then, the inverse of the vector in equation (5) is computed as:
0 1
" #21 B C
X n X n B 1 1 1 C
M jgi ¼B
BX ; ; C where ;ui; mi; li . 0
C ð5Þ
@
n Xn X
n
A
i¼1 j¼1 ui mi li
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

Finally, to obtain the Si in equation (2), we perform the following multiplication:

0 1
" #21 B C
Xm Xn X n BX m
1 Xm
1 C
Si ¼ j
M gi ^ j
M gi ¼BB l ij £ ; u ij £ C
C ð6Þ
@ j¼1 X
n X
n
A
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1 mi j¼1 li
i¼1 i¼1

2
3.2.2 Step 2. The degree of possibility of M ¼ ðl 2 , m2, u2) $ M 1 ¼ ðl 1 , m1, u1) is
defined as:
V ðM 2 $ M 1 Þ ¼ sup½ min ðmM 2 ð yÞÞ
: ð7Þ
y$x

which can be expressed equivalently as follows:

8
> 1 if m2 $ m1
>
<
V ðM 2 $ M 1 Þ ¼ hgtðM 1 > M 2 Þ ¼ mM 2 ðd Þ ¼ 0 if l 1 $ l 2 ð8Þ
>
>
: ðm ¼uðl 1Þ2ðm
2u2
; otherwise
2 2 1 ¼u1 Þ

where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between mM 1 and mM 2 >
(see Figure. 2). To compare M1 and M2, we need both the values of V(M1 $ M2) and
V(M2 $ M1). The intersection between M1 and M2 is shown in Figure 2.
3.2.3 Step 3. The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k
convex fuzzy numbers Mi(i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , k) can be defined by:

V ðM $ M 1 ; M 2 ; . . . ; M k Þ ¼ V ½ðM $ M 1 Þ and ðM $ M 2 Þ and . . . and ðM

$ M k Þ
¼ min V ðM $ M i Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k: ð9Þ
Assume that:
D0 ðS i Þ ¼ min V ðS i $ S k Þ ð10Þ
JEIM
21,3

272

Figure 2.
The intersection between
M1 and M2

For k ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n; k – i. Then the weight vector is given by:

W 0 ¼ D0 ðS 1Þ ; D0 ðS 2 Þ; . . . ; D0 ðS n ÞÞT ð11Þ
where Si (i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n) are n elements.
2.2.4 Step 4. After normalization (the elements of each column is divided by the sum
of that column and the elements in each resulting row are added and this sum is
divided by the number of elements in the row), the normalized weight vectors are
obtained as follows:

W ¼ ðDðS 1 Þ; DðS 2 Þ; . . . ; DðS n ÞÞT ; where W is not a fuzzy number: ð12Þ

The issue of consistency in fuzzy AHP is another subject that needs to be examined.
The consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) are calculated as follows:
l max 2 nÞ
CI ¼ and CR ¼ CI =RI ð13Þ
ðn 2 1Þ
where lmax is the largest eigenvalue of the comparison matrix, n is the number of items
being compared in the matrix, and RI is a random index. If the CR $ 0.10, the decision
maker has to make the pairwise judgements again (Saaty, 1990).

4. Application of the fuzzy AHP to information-sharing decisions

In this study, decision makers’ comparisons are described by linguistic terms, which
are expressed in triangular fuzzy numbers. The comparison of the importance of one
criteria, sub-criteria, or alternative over another can be done by with the help of the
questionnaire (Appendix 2). The responses collected from the questionnaires are input
to the fuzzy AHP model. Fuzzy AHP combines these comparisons obtained from the
answers’ averages to analyze criteria and alternatives weights. Based on this approach,
the weight vectors are calculated, and then the normalized weight vectors can be
determined. As a result, the evaluation matrices are obtained showing the final set of Use of fuzzy
scores of information-sharing decision alternatives. The method of calculating priority AHP
weights of the different information-sharing decision alternatives using fuzzy AHP is
discussed below.

4.1 Evaluation of criteria weights 273

In order to perform a pairwise comparison among the parameters, the linguistic scale
for the triangular numbers shown in Figure 3 and fuzzy conversion scale given in
Table I are used in our proposed model. Throughout this study, we have used five
main linguistic terms to evaluate the importance of the benefits of information-sharing
criteria, sub-criteria, and also to rate the information-sharing decision alternatives: “EI:
equally important”, “WMI: weakly more important”, “SMI: strongly more important”,
“VSMI: very strongly more important”, and “AMI: absolutely more important”. We
have also considered their reciprocals: “ALI: absolutely less important”, “VSLI: very
strongly less important”, “SLI: strongly less important”, and “WLI: weakly less
important”. These linguistic terms are chosen with the expectation that decision
makers will feel more comfortable using such terms in their assessments. For example,
someone may consider that element i is “very strongly more important” as compared
with the element j under certain criteria; he/she may set aij ¼ ð2, 5/2, 3). If element j is
thought to be “very strongly less important” than element i, the pair wise comparison
between j and i could be presented by using fuzzy number, aij ¼ ð1=u1 , 1/m1,
1=l 1 Þ ¼ ð1=3, 2/5, 1/2).

Figure 3.
The linguistic scale of the
triangular numbers for
relative importance (RI)

Linguistic scale for importance Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy reciprocal scale

Equally important (EI) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)

Weakly more important (WMI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
Strongly more important (SMI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) Table I.
Very strongly more important (VSMI) (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) Triangular fuzzy
Absolutely more important (AMI) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) conversion scale
JEIM To create pairwise comparison matrices, a group of 13 managers from different
21,3 Turkish manufacturing firms have been interviewed. Then, the fuzzy evaluation
matrix relevant to the goal has been obtained with the consensus of them and they are
located to a spreadsheet as shown in Table II. Some examples of decision makers’
answers in the form of linguistic expressions about the importance of the benefits of
information-sharing criteria are given in Appendix 2. In this appendix, we also explain
274 how we collected the inputs coming from the respondents’ answers. Furthermore, the
consistency of the pairwise comparison matrices were examined and it was determined
that all the matrices were consistent.
By applying formula (2) given in Step 1:
SSB ¼ ð3:0; 4:0; 5:0Þ^ð1=12:5; 1=9:33; 1=7:17Þ
¼ ð0:24; 0:44; 0:70Þ
SMB ¼ ð2:0; 2:67; 3:5Þ^ð1=12:5; 1=9:33; 1=7:17Þ
¼ ð0:16; 0:20; 0:49
SOB ¼ ð2:17; 2:67; 4:0Þ^ð1=12:5; 1=9:33; 1=7:17Þ
¼ ð0:17; 0:29; 0:56Þ are obtained

Using these vectors and formula (8), we can calculate the following values:

V ðS SB ¼ S MB Þ ¼ 1:00; V ðS SB ¼ S OB Þ ¼ 1:00; V ðS MB ¼ S OB Þ ¼ 1:00;

V ðS OB ¼ S MB Þ ¼ 1:00; V ðS MB ¼ S SB Þ ¼ 0:63; and; V ðS OB ¼ S SB Þ ¼ 0:69:
Finally, by using formula (10), we obtain:
D0 ðSBÞ ¼ VðSSB $ SMB ; SOB Þ ¼ min ð1:00; 1:00Þ
¼ 1:00
D0 ðMBÞ ¼ VðSMB $ SSB ; SOB Þ ¼ min ð0:63; 1:00Þ
¼ 0:63
0
D ðOBÞ ¼ VðSOB $ SSB ; SMB Þ ¼ min ð0:69; 1:00Þ
¼ 0:69

Therefore, the weight vector is calculated as W 0 ¼ ð1:00, 0.63, 0.69)T. After

normalization, the normalized weight vectors of objective with respect to the benefits
criteria SB, MB and OB from Table II is obtained as W Objective ¼ ð0:43, 0.27, 0.30)T.
According to the answers by the decision makers; we conclude that strategic benefits

SB MB OB
Table II.
The fuzzy evaluation Strategic benefits (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2)
matrix with respect to the Managerial benefits (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2)
goal Operational benefits (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1)
and operational benefits are more important than managerial benefits. Moreover, we Use of fuzzy
also observe that operational benefits are more important than managerial benefits. As AHP
a consequence, the strategic and operational benefits of information-sharing decisions
can result in much greater efficiency for ongoing success of supply chain partners. In a
similar fashion, the managers now compare the sub-criteria with respect to the main
criteria. First, they compare the sub-criteria of strategic benefits. Table III gives the
relative importance of strategic benefits sub-criteria. 275
From Table III, we calculate SFC ¼ ð0:18, 0.36, 0.60), SIMS ¼ ð0:12, 0.25, 0.44),
SEC ¼ ð0:10, 0.19, 0.33), SINP ¼ ð0:11, 0.22, 0.48), V(SFC $ S IMS Þ ¼ 1:00, V(SFC $
S EC Þ ¼ 1:00, V(SFC $ S INP Þ ¼ 1:00, V(SIMS $ S FC Þ ¼ 0:70, V(SIMS $ S EC Þ ¼ 1:00,
V(SIMS $ S INP Þ ¼ 1:00, V(SEC $ S FC Þ ¼ 0:47, V(SEC $ S IMS Þ ¼ 0:78, V(SEC $
S INP Þ ¼ 0:88, V (SINP $ S FC Þ ¼ 0:68, V(SINP $ S IMS Þ ¼ 0:92, V(SINP $
S EC Þ ¼ 1:00. Then, the normalized weight vector from Table III is calculated as
W SB ¼ ð0:35, 0.25, 0.16, 0.24)T. Based on these results, we conclude that in order to
increase the benefits of strategic sub-criteria; facilitate supply chain collaboration and
increase market share appear to be more important than enhance conflict resolution
and increase new product introduction. This result shows that cost effective, timely
and reliable flows of materials, information and finance to satisfy customer
requirements and to increase market share motivates supply chain partners to share
information (Lee, 2000; Muckstadt et al., 2001). Now, the other two matrices relevant to
pairwise comparisons of the sub-criteria of managerial and operational benefits and,
the relative importance of each matrix are given in Table IV and Table V, respectively.

FC IMS EC INP

Facilitate supply chain collaboration (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 3/2, 2) Table III.
Increase market share (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) The relative importance
Enhance conflict resolution (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) of strategic benefits
Increase new product introduction (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) sub-criteria

IC CD FPR

Increase communication (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) Table IV.

Increase capacity allocation decision (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) The relative importance
Make better decision on forecasting, planning and of managerial benefits
resource control (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) sub-criteria

IL LT SC IPD

Reduce inventory level (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) Table V.
Reduce lead time (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) The relative importance
Reduce supply chain costs (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) of operational benefits
Improve production/distribution scheduling (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) sub-criteria
JEIM The normalized weight vector from Table IV is calculated as W MB ¼ ð0:53, 0.35,
21,3 0.12)T. We can observe that for the managerial benefits of a company, increase
communication and increase capacity allocation decisions play a much more important
role than other criteria.
The normalized weight vector from Table V is calculated as W OB ¼ ð0:32, 0.25,
0.28, 0.15)T. Consequently, we can deduce that the most important criteria for the
276 operational benefits of a company are reducing inventory level, reducing supply chain
costs and reducing lead-time. In Table VI, we present the composite priority weights
obtained by the evaluation of information-sharing benefits with respect to main criteria
and sub-criteria.

4.2 Evaluation of alternatives

At the following step of the evaluation procedure, the managers compare the
operational, planning, customer requirement and financial information alternatives
with respect to each of the sub-criteria separately. These results in the matrices are
shown in Tables VII-XVII. As it seen in the Tables VIIXVII, operational, and except for

Main criteria Local weights Sub-criteria Local weights

Strategic benefits 0.43 Facilitate supply chain collaboration 0.35

Increase market share 0.25
Enhance conflict resolution 0.16
Increase new product introduction 0.24
Managerial benefits 0.27 Increase communication 0.53
Increase capacity allocation decision 0.35
Table VI. Make better decision on forecasting, planning
Composite priority and resource control. 0.12
weights for Operational benefits 0.30 Reduce inventory level 0.32
information-sharing Reduce lead time 0.25
benefits evaluation Reduce supply chain costs 0.28
criteria Improve production/distribution scheduling 0.15

OP PD CRD FD WFC
Table VII.
Evaluation of the Operational (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.16
alternatives with respect Planning (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) 0.30
to facilitating supply Customer requirement (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.19
chain collaboration Financial (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) 0.35

OP PD CRD FD WIMS
Table VIII.
Evaluation of the Operational (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.21
alternatives with respect Planning (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.26
to increasing market Customer requirement (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.31
share Financial (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.22
two sub-criteria with respect to reduce lead-time and improve production/distribution Use of fuzzy
scheduling, customer requirement information alternatives show a good performance AHP
in terms of all criteria. Planning information alternative is the weakest except for three
sub-criteria in which it shows a highest performance level. This means that managers
consider the operational and customer requirement information as being more
important than planning and financial information.
277

OP PD CRD FD WEC
Table IX.
Operational (1, 1, 1) (2, 5/2, 3) (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.49 Evaluation of the
Planning (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) 0.05 alternatives with respect
Customer requirement (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.29 to enhancing conflict
Financial (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.17 resolution

OP PD CRD FD WINP
Table X.
Operational (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) 0.15 Evaluation of the
Planning (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.32 alternatives with respect
Customer requirement (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) 0.25 to increasing new product
Financial (1, 3/2, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.28 introduction

OP PD CRD FD WIC
Table XI.
Operational (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.32 Evaluation of the
Planning (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.05 alternatives with respect
Customer requirement (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.38 to increasing
Financial (1/2, 2/3, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.25 communication

OP PD CRD FD WCD
Table XII.
Operational (1, 1, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.18 Evaluation of the
Planning (2, 5/2, 3) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.24 alternatives with respect
Customer requirement (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.34 to increasing capacity
Financial (1/2, 2/3, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.24 allocation decision

Table XIII.
OP PD CRD FD WFPR Evaluation of the
alternatives with respect
Operational (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.41 to making better
Planning (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.05 decisions on forecasting,
Customer requirement (1/2, 2/3, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.32 planning, and resource
Financial (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) 0.22 control
JEIM 4.3 Final scores of alternatives
21,3 In Tables XVIII-XX we present the last computations in order to obtain the alternative
priority weights of our information alternatives. This is accomplished by aggregating
the weights over the hierarchy for each decision alternative. To do this, we multiply the
weights along the path from the top of the hierarchy to a decision alternative, and then

278
OP PD CRD FD WIL
Table XIV.
Evaluation of the Operational (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.35
alternatives with respect Planning (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) 0.00
to reducing inventory Customer requirement (1, 3/2, 2) (2, 5/2, 3) (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) 0.47
level Financial (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) 0.18

OP PD CRD FD WLT

Table XV. Operational (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.26
Evaluation of the Planning (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (2, 5/2, 3) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.45
alternatives with respect Customer requirement (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) 0.00
to reducing lead time Financial (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1) 0.29

OP PD CRD FD WSC
Table XVI.
Evaluation of the Operational (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.31
alternatives with respect Planning (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.21
to reducing supply chain Customer requirement (1, 3/2, 2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.48
costs Financial (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1, 1, 1) 0.00

Table XVII. OP PD CRD FD WIPD

Evaluation of the
alternatives with respect Operational (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 3/2, 2) 0.36
to improving Planning (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2, 5/2, 3) 0.42
production/distribution Customer requirement (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) 0.00
scheduling Financial (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1, 1, 1) 0.22

FC IMS EC INP Alternative priority weights

Weights 0.35 0.25 0.16 0.24

Alternatives
Table XVIII. Operational 0.16 0.21 0.49 0.15 0.22
Priority weights of the Planning 0.30 0.26 0.05 0.32 0.26
alternatives with respect Customer requirement 0.19 0.31 0.29 0.25 0.25
to strategic benefits Financial 0.35 0.22 0.17 0.28 0.27
sum those results over all the different pathways to that decision alternative. Finally, Use of fuzzy
the combination of weights for sub-criteria and alternatives is calculated to determine AHP
the final priority weights for main criteria (Büyüközkan, 2004). The final score results
can be observed from the final priority weights presented in Table XXI. Our main
result is that customer requirement and operational information alternatives are the
preferred key decisions, which all supply chain partners might agree to share with each
other. Moreover, we can also conclude that the planning and financial information has 279
almost the same importance.

5. Conclusion
In a competitive environment, the success of organizations will increasingly depend on
their information to share with partners in their strategic decisions. However,
managers are often uncertain about how to share the key information to enhance their
business. This research proposes a methodology for both managers and a group of
organizations in a supply chain to make decisions on which types of information they
should share with their partners.

IC CD FPR Alternative priority weights

Weights 0.53 0.35 0.12

Alternatives
Operational 0.32 0.18 0.41 0.28 Table XIX.
Planning 0.05 0.24 0.05 0.12 Priority weights of the
Customer requirement 0.38 0.34 0.32 0.36 alternatives with respect
Financial 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 to managerial benefits

IL LT SC IPD Alternative priority weights

Weights 0.32 0.25 0.28 0.15

Alternatives
Operational 0.35 0.26 0.31 0.36 0.32 Table XX.
Planning 0.00 0.45 0.21 0.42 0.23 Priority weights of the
Customer requirement 0.47 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.29 alternatives with respect
Financial 0.18 0.29 0.00 0.22 0.16 to operational benefits

Strategic Managerial Operational Final priority weights

Weights 0.43 0.27 0.30

Alternatives
Operational 0.22 0.28 0.32 0.27
Planning 0.26 0.12 0.23 0.21 Table XXI.
Customer requirement 0.25 0.36 0.29 0.29 Final scores of the
Financial 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.23 alternatives
JEIM Fuzzy AHP allows managers to answer a variety of questions such as which
21,3 information has the biggest impact on evaluating the benefits of information-sharing
decisions or how to guide partners who want to improve shared information in a
collaborative relationships area. Use of fuzzy AHP methodology offers a number of
benefits. Firstly, it is a more systematic method than the other MCDM methods and it
is more capable of capturing a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when complex
280 multi-criteria decision making problems are considered. Because of this ability,
managers can use this method in making their strategic decisions in case of uncertain
and imprecise data. Secondly, since humans are comparatively efficient in making
qualitative forecasting, fuzzy methodology is an excellent tool to handle qualitative
assessments about information-sharing decision problems. However, fuzzy AHP is a
highly complex methodology and requires more numerical calculations in assessing
composite priorities than the traditional AHP and hence it increases the effort. That
drawback certainly limits its applicability to real world problems.
In this study, qualitative assessments of fuzzy AHP methodology are developed
based on integrating the total benefits of information-sharing with various types of
information for Turkish manufacturing firms. Our evaluation framework demonstrate
that the customer requirement and operational information alternatives are the
preferred key decisions, which all supply chain partners might agree to share with each
other. Further, we can also conclude that the planning and financial information
alternatives have almost the same importance. As a result, successful organizations
will use these results in managing, benchmarking and continuously improving their
supply chains.
For the future research, fuzzy methodology could be extended with the other MCDM
methods such as Analytical Network Process (ANP), TOPSIS, ELECTRE and DEA.
These methods have been recently developed to use in a fuzzy environment. Further
research may be the application of these methods to the information-sharing decision
problems and the comparison of the results.

References
Anand, K.S. and Mendelson, H. (1997), “Information and organization for horizontal multi market
coordination”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp. 1609-27.
Angerhofer, B.J. and Angelides, M.C. (2006), “A model and a performance measurement system
for collaborative supply chains”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 283-301.
Boender, C.G.E., de Grann, J.G. and Lootsma, F.A. (1989), “Multi-criteria decision analysis with
fuzzy pairwise comparisons”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 29, pp. 133-43.
Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C. and Ruan, D. (2003), “Fuzzy group decision making for selection
among computer integrated manufacturing systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 13-29.
Buckley, J.J. (1985), “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 233-47.
Büyüközkan, G. (2004), “Multi-criteria decision making for e-marketplace selection”, Internet
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-54.
Büyüközkan, G. and Feyzioğlu, O. (2004), “A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making approach for
new product development”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 90 No. 1,
pp. 27-45.
Büyüközkan, G., Kahraman, C. and Ruan, D. (2004), “A fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach for Use of fuzzy
software development strategy selection”, International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 33
Nos 2-3, pp. 259-80. AHP
Cachon, G.P. and Fisher, M. (2000), “Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared
information”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1032-48.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N. (2007), “Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP-based approach”, Omega, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 417-31. 281
Chang, D.-Y. (1992), Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization Techniques and
Applications, Vol. 1, p. 352.
Chang, D.-Y. (1996), “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 649-55.
Chantrasa, R. (2005), “Decision-making approaches for information-sharing in a supply chain”,
dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
Chen, F. (1998), “Echelon reorder points, installation reorder points, and the value of centralized
demand information”, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 12, pp. 221-34.
Cheng, C.-H. (1996), “Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade
value of membership function”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 96 No. 2,
pp. 343-50.
Cheng, C.-H., Yang, K.-L. and Hwang, C.-L. (1999), “Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based
on linguistic variable weight”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 423-35.
Deng, H. (1999), “Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison”, International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 215-31.
Erensal, Y.C., Öncan, T. and Demircan, M.L. (2006), “Determining key capabilities in technology
management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey”, Information
Sciences, Vol. 176 No. 18, pp. 2755-70.
Gavirneni, S., Kapuscinski, R. and Tayur, S. (1999), “Value of information in capacitated supply
chains”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Huang, G.Q., Lau, J.S.K. and Mak, K.L. (2003), “The impacts of sharing production information on
supply chain dynamics: a review of the literature”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1483-517.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. and Ruan, D. (2004), “Multi-attribute comparison of catering service
companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 171-84.
Kahraman, C., Ulukan, Z. and Tolga, E. (1998), “A fuzzy weighted evaluation method using
objective and subjective measures”, Proceedings of International ICSC Symposium on
Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS’98, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Vol. 1,
pp. 57-63.
Kuo, R.J., Chi, S.C. and Kao, S.S. (2002), “A decision support system for selecting convenience
store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network”, Computers
in Industry, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 199-214.
Kwong, C.K. and Bai, H. (2003), “Determining the importance weights for the customer
requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach”,
IIE Transactions, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 619-26.
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83.
JEIM Lee, H.L. (2000), “Creating value through supply chain integration”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 30-6.
21,3
Lee, H.L. and Whang, S. (2000), “Information-sharing in a supply chain”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 20 Nos 3-4, pp. 373-87.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997a), “Information distortion in a supply chain:
the bullwhip effect”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 546-58.
282 Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S. (1997b), “The bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-102.
Lee, H.L., So, K. and Tang, C. (2000), “The value of information-sharing in a two-level supply
chain”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 626-43.
Lee, M., Pham, H. and Zhang, X. (1999), “A methodology for priority setting with application to
software development process”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 118 No. 2,
pp. 375-89.
Leung, L.C. and Cao, D. (2000), “On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 102-13.
Li, J., Sikora, R., Shaw, M.J. and Tan, G.W. (2006), “A strategic analysis of inter organizational
information-sharing”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 251-66.
McLaren, T., Head, M. and Yuan, Y. (2002), “Supply chain collaboration alternatives:
understanding the expected costs and benefits”, Internet Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 348-64.
Mentzer, J.T., Foggin, J.H. and Golicic, S.L. (2000a), “Collaboration: the enablers, impediments,
and benefits”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 52-8.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2000b), “The nature of interfirm partnering in supply
chain management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 549-68.
Mikhailov, L. (2002), “Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection in formation of virtual
enterprises”, Omega, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 393-401.
Moinzadeh, K. (2002), “A multi-echelon inventory system with information exchange”,
Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 414-26.
Muckstadt, J.A., Murray, D.H., Rappold, J.A. and Collins, D.E. (2001), “Guidelines for
collaborative supply chain system design and operation”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 427-53.
Premkumar, G. (2000), “Inter organization systems and supply chain management:
an information processing perspective”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 56-68.
Ruoning, X. and Xiaoyan, Z. (1992), “Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy
environment”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 251-7.
Saaty, T.L. (1990), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh,
PA.
Samaddar, S., Nargundkar, S. and Daley, M. (2006), “Inter-organizational information-sharing:
the role of supply network configuration and partner goal congruence”, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 174 No. 2, pp. 744-65.
Shore, B. and Venkatachalam, A.R. (2003), “Evaluating the information-sharing capabilities of
supply chain partners: a fuzzy logic model”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 804-24.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000), Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Comparative Study,
Kluwer Academic Publisher, London.
Tüysüz, F. and Kahraman, C. (2006), “Project risk evaluation using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy Use of fuzzy
process: an application to information technology projects”, International Journal of
Intelligent Systems, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 559-84. AHP
Van Laarhoven, P.J.M. and Pedrycz, W. (1983), “A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory”,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 1-3, pp. 229-41.
Yu, C.S. (2002), “A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems”,
Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 29 No. 14, pp. 1969-2001. 283
Yu, Z., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2001), “Benefits of information-sharing with supply chain
partnerships”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 114-9.
Zhao, X. and Xie, J. (2002), “Forecasting errors and the value of information-sharing in a supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 311-35.
Zhao, X., Xie, J. and Zhang, W.J. (2002), “The impact of information-sharing and ordering
co-ordination on supply chain performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Zhu, K.-J., Jing, Y. and Chang, D.-Y. (1999), “A discussion on extent analysis method and
applications of fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 450-6.

Appendix 1. The definition of the triangular fuzzy number and fuzzy operational
laws
A fuzzy number is a special fuzzy set F ¼ x [ RjmF(x)}, where x takes its values on the real line
R1: 2 1 , x , 1 and mF(x) is a continuous mapping from R1 to the close interval[0, 1]. A
triangular fuzzy number can be denoted as M ¼ ðl, m, u). Its membership function mM(x): ! [0,
1] is equal to:
8
> 0; x , l or x . u
>
<
mM ðxÞ ¼ ðx 2 l Þ=ðm 2 l Þ l # x # m;
>
>
: ðx 2 uÞ=ðm 2 uÞ m # x # u:

where l # m # u, l and u stand for the lower and upper value of the support of M respectively,
and m is the mid-value of M. when l ¼ m ¼ u, it is a non-fuzzy number by convention. The main
operational laws for two positive triangular fuzzy numbers M1 and M2 are as follows
(Triantaphyllou, 2000):

M 1 þ M 2 ¼ ðl 1 þ l 2 ; m1 þ m2 ; u1 þ u2 Þ;
M 1 ^M 2 < ðl 1 l 2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 u2 Þ;
l^M 1 ¼ ðll 1 ; lu1 ; lu1 Þ; l . 0; l [ R;
M 21
1 < ð1=u1 ; 1=m1 ; 1=l 1 Þ:

Appendix 2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire is composed of questions relating to the benefits of information-sharing and
information-sharing decision alternatives. The questionnaire was conducted with 30 of the top
500 Turkish firms operating in various manufacturing industries within the city of Istanbul in
Turkey. This sample was selected randomly from the database of Istanbul Chamber of
Commerce. Questionnaires were sent by fax to the selected companies. It was requested that the
questionnaire be completed by functional executives such as logistics manager, production
JEIM manager and information technology manager. However, of the 30 questionnaires sent, 4 of the
questionnaires were returned after one follow-up. Then, managers of the selected companies
21,3 were invited to answer the questions by phone and provided with an explanation of the purpose
of the study. With the collaboration of 9 managers, the overall responses were received for a net
response rate of 43 percent (13/30), which was considered satisfactory for fuzzy AHP analysis.
Then, the answers’ averages are computed and rounded to their closest linguistic scale (Table I)
in order to analyze these data by using fuzzy AHP. This method is basically similar to the one
284 proposed by Erensal et al. (2006). A sample of questions from the questionnaire can be given as
follows:
If a criterion on the left is more important than the one on the right, put cross mark “X” to the
left of the equally important “EI” column, under the importance level (column) you prefer. On the
other hand, if a criterion on the left is less important than the one on the right, put cross mark “X”
to the right of the equally important “EI” column under the importance level (column) you prefer.
With respect to the overall goal “evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions in a
supply chain”
Q1. How important is the strategic benefits (SB) when it is compared to
managerial benefits (MB)?
Q2. How important is the strategic benefits (SB) when it is compared to
operational benefits (OB)?
Q3. How important is the managerial benefits (MB) when it is compared to
operational benefits (OB)?
The answers related for this sample questions are presented in Table AI.

Answers AMI VSMI SMI WMI EI WLI SLI VSLI ALI

Table AI.
Answers to some of the A1 X
sample questions from A2 X
the questionnaire A3 X

About the author

Selçuk Perçin holds a PhD from Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. He is presently working as
an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Karadeniz
Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey. His research interests focus on business performance,
supply chain management, structural equation modeling (Lisrel) and operations researches
techniques (AHP, DEA, Linear and mixed-integer programming, Goal programming, etc.). He
can be contacted at: spercin@ktu.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints