A New Spherical Fuzzy LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Framework: Application in Evaluation of Leanness of MSMEs in India

Biswas, Sanjib; Pamučar, Dragan; Božanić, Darko; Halder, Bikash

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5480848

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Related Work Preliminaries Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Different Approaches in Treating Uncertainty in the Application of Multicriteria Decision Modeling

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 5480848 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5480848

A New Spherical Fuzzy LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Framework: Application in Evaluation of Leanness of MSMEs in India

Sanjib Biswas,¹Dragan Pamučar,²Darko Božanić,²and Bikash Halder¹

Academic Editor: Ardashir Mohammadzadeh

Received18 Feb 2022

Revised10 May 2022

Accepted10 Jun 2022

Published08 Jul 2022

Abstract

The present paper aims to propose a new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework with spherical fuzzy numbers (SFNs). We extend two recently developed algorithms such as level-based weight assessment (LBWA) and MULTIMOOSRAL in spherical fuzzy (SF) domain. We present a case study on six MSME units belonging to engineering cluster for examining their leanness. MSMEs form the backbone of the socioeconomic growth and therefore garner attention of the policy makers. Lean manufacturing (LM) has been a key enabler for the last three decades which help the organizations to achieve business growth. We consider the criteria like leadership, supplier focus, customer focus, process management, waste, culture, human resource focus, technology use and communication, and awareness to compare leanness of the MSMEs using expert opinions. We find that committed leadership, waste reduction, and customer value are given more weightage by the experts for achieving leanness in SMEs. Furthermore, the results show that medium and small units with focused product line score high in terms of leanness. We validate the results obtained by our proposed method by comparing with the same derived by using another widely used approach such as Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). We carry out sensitivity analysis for examining the stability in the solution with the changes in the given condition such as variations in the criteria weights. Our results using SF-LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL show reasonable accuracy and stability.

1. Introduction

The last two decades are characterized by revolutionary progress in technology, extreme volatility and disruption, cut-throat competition, rise in knowledgeable customer base, and rapid speed of innovation. The organizations are challenged by increasing demand from the market in terms of superior quality, variety, quick response, convenience, and affordability with respect to cost [1]. As a result, the organizations have no other choice but to optimize their processes and put all efforts to deliver maximum possible value with optimum utilization of resources [2]. In other words, organizations strive to become lean. The concept of lean management and/or lean manufacturing (LM) was first defined by Krafcik [3] and later got popularized in 1990 with explanations given by Womack and his colleagues [4]. Gupta et al. [5] defined LM as “an integrated multi-dimensional approach encompassing a wide variety of management practices based on the philosophy of eliminating waste through continuous improvement.” The work in [6–8] portrays the benefits of practicing the principles and tools of LM as reduction in defect rates and waste, human efforts, process hours, space requirement, and operational cost while increasing value, customer satisfaction, demand, flow of the process, and morale of the employees among others. LM paves the way to global excellence through continuous introspection and improvement for the organizations by imbibing the philosophy and implementing the concepts and tools [9]. In this regard, leanness is the extent to which the concepts and practices of LM are adapted and implemented vis-à-vis organizational goals and customers’ requirement. In simple term, leanness indicates how lean is an organization [10].

In India as per the provisions of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) are defined as the organizations having investment up to 10 crores with an annual turnover ranging from 5 to 250 crores. The market size of MSMEs in India is around 6.3 crores with an increase in number by CAGR 18.5 percent in 2020 [11]. MSMEs provide foundation to the socioeconomic growth of a nation, contributing to employment generation, empower the youth and improving livelihood (especially self-help groups and women), income distribution, provide support to large-scale industries, resource mobilization, reduce regional disparity, export balancing, and accelerate social reform [12–18]. Needless to mention that for the inclusive development of the country like India, empowerment and growth of MSMEs are very important. The estimated growth of India’s manufacturing sector is USD 1 trillion by 2025 wherein MSMEs play the role as one of the key enablers for fostering the promise of “Make-in-India” initiative taken by the Govt. of India (GOI). LM helps to improve the dynamic capabilities and competitiveness of the MSMEs by combating the constraints like fund, space, skill, waste, imbalanced process, manpower, maintenance, and facilities, among others [19, 20].

Therefore, from the facts and figures, it is evident that MSME sector has huge potential for the growth of India. Further, LM plays an important role in accelerating the growth of MSMEs and improving their competitiveness. Having understood the benefits and relevance of LM for MSMEs, it is quite imperative to assess the leanness of MSMEs. In this context, the present study attempts to find answers of the following research questions. (RQ1) How to measure the leanness of MSMEs? (RQ2) How to compare the competitiveness of the MSMEs from multiple perspectives? However, in this regard, we observe that the extant literature does not show adequate evidence in favour of competitive assessment of leanness of MSMEs. Our paper fills the gap to the literature by providing a framework for comparing the achievement of leanness of a group of MSMEs.

It is evident that for a holistic comparison of MSMEs in terms of their leanness, a complex multi-criteria analysis is involved. The problem can be formally expressed as .

Here, m is the number of MSME units under comparison with respect to n criteria that are manifesting leanness of the organization, and is the leanness achievement of MSME unit with respect to criterion. In this paper, we present a sample case study of six MSMEs located in the eastern part of India wherein the sample units are compared on the basis of the on-field diagnostic study and opinions by a group of three experts. The dimensions or criteria for comparison are derived from literature supported by the opinions of the experts vis-à-vis RQ1. Hence, the present study calls for a complex and subjective opinion-based group decision-making approach to answer RQ2. We address this problem by carrying out our analysis in SF domain.

The concept of fuzzy sets (FSs) and fuzzy numbers (FNs) were introduced to handle impreciseness of information under uncertain and ambiguous environment by Zadeh [21]. Unlike the crisp sets, FS considers the varying degree of membership of the elements ranging from 0 to 1. However, there are real-life situations wherein the degree of non-membership and neutrality add significant complexity. In view of the requirement to provide additional flexibility to the analyst for decision making in uncertain environment, Atanassov [22] introduced intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) as a generalization of FS. IFS considers both degree of membership (μ) and non-membership (υ) with the condition that . Moving further, Atanassov and Gargov [23] extended the concept of IFS with interval values, aka interval-valued IFS (IVIFS). The strand of literature that worked on FS, IFS, and IVIFS later observed the conditions where . To solve this problem, Yager [24] propounded a new variant, called Pythagorean fuzzy set (PyFS) as a generalization of IFS. PyFS follows the norms . As a further generalization of PyFS, q rung orthopair fuzzy set (qROFS) was proposed (with a relation ) [25]. In effect, q = 2 converts qROFS into PyFS and for q = 1, it becomes IFS. However, researchers [26, 27] felt the importance of considering the degree of membership, non-membership, neutrality (ϒ), and refusal too. As a result, a new branch of the broad domain of FS, known as picture fuzzy sets (PFSs), was introduced. PFS is more capable of countering the issue of vagueness and imprecise information and satisfies the condition . The rationale behind use of the recently developed wings of extended fuzzy sets such as spherical fuzzy set (SFS) stems from the disadvantage of PFS in some cases wherein [28]. SFS is grounded on the concept of three-dimensional spherical geometry and the membership degrees follow the condition . SFS is an advanced extension of neutrosophic fuzzy sets [29] and type 2 IFS [30]. SFS provides a number of advantages [31, 32] such as(i)Unlike IFS, it considers the sum of membership and non-membership degrees greater than 1.(ii)In contrast to PyFS, it considers the degree of hesitancy.(iii)Compared to PFS, SFS works well in a typical situation wherein, for instance, that does not satisfy (PFS) but does not violate the assumption of SFS, i.e., . Therefore, SFS provides the decision makers more flexibility and larger space.

Furthermore, if compared with qROFS, SFS provides the benefits like consideration of hesitancy and lesser complexity in computation and visualization. SFS considers three-dimensional space or volume which is more easy to conceptualize, visualize, and handle as compared with qROFS. SFS is also less complex that Fermatean fuzzy sets [33]. In this paper, we apply SFS to solve the issue of performance evaluation of SMEs using a combined novel framework of LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL approach. LBWA is a recently developed algorithm that works on level-based partitioning of the criteria as per their relative significance to decide the criteria weights [34]. The MULTIMOOSRAL approach combines the weighted sum, weighted product, and logarithmic approximations to rank the alternatives subject to the influence of the criteria [35]. In effect, the MULTIMOOSRAL algorithm is an upgraded synthesis of the popular approaches like multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA), multi-objective optimization on the basis of simple ratio analysis (MOOSRA), multi-objective analysis by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA), weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS), and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo).

The proposed SF-LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL framework (as used in this paper) provides the following advantages.(i)Greater flexibility to the decision makers (DM) in rating as SFS allows more space in selecting the values of membership, non-membership, and hesitancy.(ii)Lesser computational complexity as the framework uses simple arithmetic operators.(iii)The model uses less number of pairwise comparisons for determining criteria weights and subsequently reduces the possibility of the subjective bias unlike its counterparts like analytic hierarchy process (AHP).(iv)Ability to work with a large criteria and alternative set with subjective and objective information.(v)Ability to withstand large variations in the criteria values.(vi)Combination of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and logarithmic approach in evaluation.(vii)Reasonably accurate and stable results.

The motivations behind the present paper are as follows.(a)We find that several authors have worked on establishing the importance of practicing LM for achieving competitive advantage for the organizations. Furthermore, the authors have also advocated in favour of maintaining leanness in the processes for optimization and mobilization of the resources and adding value to the customers. The extant literature has provided definitions and measurement of leanness. In the context of MSMEs, past works have shown the utility of practicing LM. However, there is a scantiness of work that measures and compares leanness of MSMEs in Indian context.(b)From the methodological point of view, SFS has been recently introduced to overcome the drawbacks of IFS and PyFS. SFS as compared with IFS, PyFS, and PFS provides more flexibility in selection of membership, non-membership, and hesitancy grades which allow the researchers to apply in real-life situations. We observe that SFS has not been used for subjective opinion-based group decision-making cases using LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL.(c)As we have mentioned the benefits of our proposed model above, we do not find any literature that has used an integrated framework of LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL.

The major contributions of the present paper are as follows.(i)The present paper provides a comprehensive multi-criteria-based evaluation framework for comparing leanness of the MSMEs in Indian context. The extant literature shows a scantiness of research in considering multiple dimensions of assessment of leanness through a comparative study.(ii)A novel hybrid framework of LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL for multi-criteria group decision making is proposed.(iii)In the present study, we provide a new extension of LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL using SFS. The use of SFS in solving various research problems is growing but has not been explored exhaustively for applications in MCDM problems.

The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we include some of the recent related work. Section 3 presents some preliminary concepts of SFS and SFN. Section 4 navigates the research methodology. The summary of results is included in Section 5. Section 6 provides the discussion on the results and sheds light on some of the research implications. In Section 7, we make the concluding remarks and mention some of the future scopes.

In this section, we present some of the relative work on assessment of leanness, SFS, and applications of LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL methods.

In the last decade, a number of studies have been conducted towards developing measure of leanness. For instance, Seyedhosseini et al. [36] utilized the balanced scorecard framework to define leanness measures. Azevedo et al. [37] put emphasis on agility for ensuring leanness in the context of supply chain management. The use of an integrated AHP-DEMATEL model is noticed in [38] in exploring the priority of the factors responsible for implementation of LM. The work of Patil et al. [39] focused on the new product development process and contributed five measures such as knowledge management, customer value, design cost, and schedule. Maasouman and Demirli [40] stressed on leadership, people management, facility management, process, working condition, quality, and just-in-time operations to assess the leanness of cellular manufacturing. In this regard, Basu et al. [41] advocated for ensuring employee welfare for supporting the successful implementation of LM. In the study [42], the authors presented a leanness assessment framework considering leadership, supplier focus, customer value, process management, and employee development and further developed a value stream map in the context of a large-scale organization belonging to Indian plywood industry. Some authors relied on probabilistic and statistical approaches to examine the root of lean elements and their interactions [43, 44]. Kroes et al. [45] investigated the causal effect of lean practices on the performance of the retail firms. The study in [46] enquired the preparedness of pharmaceutical organization for implementing LM tools. Tekez and Taşdeviren [47] extended the strand of literature with their advocacy for innovation as a measure of leanness. Therefore, we have noticed that a good number of studies have been done to find out the measures of leanness. However, there is a lack of evidence of using all these dimensions to carry out comparative evaluation of the organizations in terms of leanness.

In the context of MSMEs, there has been a notable number of attempts made towards constructing leanness measurement framework. For example, Ravikumar et al. [48] followed a two-stage approach. The authors considered the attributes like leadership, organizational culture, financial support, communication, performance management system, skill set, training, planning, critical thinking, and customer focus. In the first stage, the authors applied structural equation modelling to ascertain the causal relationship of the attributes with leanness, while in the second stage, a TOPSIS-based MCDM framework was utilized to prioritize the attributes and carry out a comparative assessment of selected MSME units. Prabhakar et al. [49] endeavoured to identify the enablers of LM and prioritize using fuzzy AHP-ISM method. Singh et al. [50] took the discussion to a different level by incorporating the environmental aspect and considered product quality, environmental impact, green product development, and optimization of cost for successfully ensuring leanness in MSMEs. The authors applied the best-worst method (BWM). The work of [51] used the fuzzy AHP-DEMATEL framework to prioritize enablers and barriers and reported that management support, training and knowledge, and technology are some of the top influencing factors. In [52], the researchers attempted to measure leanness in terms of the financial outcomes. In the same line, the study of [53] applied an integrated AHP-ISM model to identify and rank the enablers for leanness in MSMEs. It is evident from the review of the extant literature that the authors have established importance of LM for MSMEs. The authors have applied various algorithms for investigating critical success factors (CSFs) and challenges of implementation of LM for MSMEs. However, there is a lack of confluence of CSF and measurable attributes for LM and subsequently application of MCDM-based approaches for holistically comparing leanness of MSMEs. It is an established fact that LM enables the MSMEs to achieve competitive advantage. But, in a country like India, there is a lack of governance and awareness about leanness particularly for MSMEs. Of late, National Productivity Council (NPC) of India initiated a nationwide drive for assessing leanness and formulating intervention measures for supporting the MSMEs to embrace LM under the Government of India agenda of Make in India. We notice that in Indian context, a comparative multi-criteria-based analysis of extent of implementation of leanness has not been explored in the extant literature. Table 1 provides a comparative study of the present paper with some of the past work.

SFS has garnered attention from the researchers for extensive use in solving various real-life issues like medical diagnosis problem using trigonometric similarity measures and Choquet integral-based SF operation [54]; 3D printer selection using interval valued SF-additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method [55]; waste disposal location selection using SF-REGIME approach [56]; insurance policy selection using SF bi-objective linear decision-making model [57]; SF-analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection [58]; process mining application with SF-AHP [59]; energy management using SF linear Diophantine fuzzy soft rough sets [60]; cosine similarity-based medical diagnosis [61]; advertisement strategy formulation with SF-TOPSIS method [62]; Earth science application with SF [63]; SF-based failure mode and effect analysis in marble manufacturing [64]; assessment of efficacies of Facebook ads using SF-VIKOR in a group decision-making setup [65]; present value analysis in wealth management [66]; agricultural management in Industry 4.0 using interval-valued SF [67]; hospital performance evaluation using interval-valued SF-AHP [68]; and fraud detection with interval-valued AHP-MULTIMOORA method [69], among others. We have found that though there is an increasing number of applications of SFS in variety of areas, there is scope for further extensions of existing MCDM algorithms.

LBWA has been a popular method of late as is evident from the literature. The extant literature shows application of LBWA in various real-life situations, for example, social entrepreneurship [70], facility location planning [71, 72], talent acquisition [73], technology management [74], risk management in merger and acquisition [75], supplier selection [76], military applications [77–80], fleet management [81], healthcare operation [82, 83], and energy management and preservation [84, 85], among others. On the other hand, the applications of the MULTIMOOSRAL method have not yet reached the level of proliferation. Some of the recent applications of MULTIMOOSRAL method include supplier selection [35] and sustainable energy source selection [86], among others.

3. Preliminaries

In this section, we discuss about definitions and some fundamental properties and operations of SFS and SFN based on the past work [28, 31, 32, 87–89].

Let U be the universe of discourse.

Definition 1. A spherical fuzzy set (SFS) is defined aswhere ; .
, respectively, represent the degree of positive, negative, and hesitancy.
Figure 1 gives a pictorial representation of the difference among IFS, type 2 IFS (IFS2), neutrosophic fuzzy set (NS), and SFS.

Definition 2. Basic operations.
Let us represent the SFS in terms of the spherical fuzzy number (SFN) as without losing the meaning of usual terms. Let and be two SFNs. Some of the basic operations are defined as follows.
Addition:Multiplication:Multiplication by a scalar: .Power of : .Complement of :

Definition 3. Spherical weighted average.
Let be the weights of the SFNs where n is finite; .
Spherical weighted arithmetic average (SWAA) is defined asSpherical weighted geometric average (SWGA) is defined as

Definition 4. Score and accuracy function.
The score function is defined as [31]The accuracy function is given as [31]In this context, the certainty function is defined as [31]Rule:(i)If , then .(ii)If , then .(iii)If , then If , then . If , then .(iv)If and , then If , then .

Definition 5. Defuzzification.
The defuzzified value of is given as

4. Materials and Methods

In this section, we present the overall steps of the research methodology followed in this paper and the case study on six MSME sample units under study. The flow of the steps is shown in Figure 2.

4.1. Case Study

In this paper, we consider six MSME sample units belonging to engineering cluster and located in the eastern part of the country. Table 2 provides brief information about the sample units. For confidentiality purpose, we do not disclose their real names in this paper. Therefore, the units are mentioned as A1, A2, … A6 in our paper. These units act as alternatives in the multi-criteria decision-making framework presented in this paper. A group of three experts took part in the field study and opinion making. The experts (E1, E2 and E3) have significant experience in implementation of LM techniques in large organizations with industrial experience of 15, 18, and 22 years, respectively. We consider the criteria as derived from the literature (see Table 3).

4.2. LBWA Method

The algorithmic steps of LBWA [34] are briefly mentioned below. Step 1: determination of the most important criterion. Let (where, j = 1, 2, 3, …, n) be the criteria from the criteria set indicated by . Let the i^th criterion be the most important criterion according to the decision maker. Step 2: formation of subsets of criteria by grouping based on level of significance. The grouping process is demonstrated below. Level L₁: group the criteria and form the subset with the criteria having equal to or up to twice as less as the significance of the criterion . Level L₂: group the criteria and form the subset with the criteria having exactly twice as less as the significance of the criterion or up to three times as less as the significance of the criterion Level L₃: group the criteria and form the subset with the criteria having exactly three times as less as the significance of the criterion or up to four times as less as the significance of the criterion Level L_k: group the criteria and form the subset with the criteria having exactly “k” times as less as the significance of the criterion or up to “k + 1” times as less as the significance of the criterion . Hence, If is the significance of the j^th criterion, it can be stated that Also, the following condition holds good to appropriately define the grouping: Step 3: find out comparative significance of the criteria within the subsets. Based on the comparison, each criterion is assigned with an integer value where r is the maximum value on the scale for comparison and is given by Conditions followed in this context are(i)The integer value of the most important criterion, i.e.,(ii)If is more significant than , then(iii)If is equally significant with , then Step 4: defining the elasticity coefficient. The elasticity coefficient is defined as any number belonging the set of real numbers which meets the condition and where represents a set of real numbers. Step 5: deriving the influence function of the criteria. For a particular criterion , the influence function can be defined as . It is calculated as where k is the number of level or subset to which belongs and is the value assigned to the criterion within that level. Step 6: calculation of the optimum values of the criteria weights for most significant criterion: where . For other criteria: .

4.3. MULTIMOOSRAL Method

The computational steps are given below [35]. Step 1. Formation of the evaluation matrix (EM) for decision making. Let be the EM where m is the number of alternatives and n is the number of criteria. Step 2. Normalize EM. The normalized EM (NEM) is obtained by Step 3. Calculation of the overall utility of the alternatives using ratio scale (RS) approach. The following steps are followed. First, the overall importance of the alternatives is calculated as The overall utility is given by The normalized overall utility is obtained as Step 4. Calculate the utility of alternatives using reference point (RP) approach. First, the reference point is determined as The maximal distance of each alternative with respect to the RP is given as The normalized maximal distance is obtained as The normalized maximal distance is the overall normalized utility of the alternatives based on RP approach. Step 5. Obtain the utility of the alternatives using full multiplicative form (FMF). The overall utility using FMF is given as The normalized overall utility of the alternatives is given as Step 6. Obtain the utility of the alternatives using addition form (AF). The overall utility using AF is given as The normalized overall utility of the alternatives is given as Step 7. Obtain the utility of the alternatives using logarithmic approach (LA). The overall utility is given by The normalized overall utility of the alternatives is given as Step 8. Ranking of the alternatives based on total utility value. The total utility value of an alternative is obtained as The higher the total utility, the better the alternative.

4.4. Proposed SF-LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Method

The procedural steps are in line with the descriptions of LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL method given in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The steps are given below. Step 1. Formulate the SF linguistic rating matrix for the criteria for each expert. At this step, SFS-based analysis helps the analyst to select a wide range of values of membership and non-membership. Step 2. Aggregate the expert opinions using SWGA operator (see expression (8)) to obtain the SF criteria rating matrix. SWGA operator helps to offset variations in the selection of membership and non-membership values. Step 3. Obtain the score of the SF criteria rating matrix by using expression (9). The score function includes all membership values including degree of hesitancy and therefore is an improved measure of uncertainty. Step 4. Follow the steps of the LBWA method (see Section 4.2 and expressions (13)–(21)) to derive the criteria weights. Step 5. Formulate the SF linguistic rating matrix for the alternatives with respect to the criteria for each expert. Step 6. Aggregate the expert opinions using SWGA operator (see expression (8)) to obtain the SF evaluation matrix (SFEM). Step 7. Normalize the SFEM (NSFEM), Here, Use expression (6). Step 8. Obtain the score values of NSFEM. Step 9. Follow steps 3 to 8 (expressions (23) to (35)) of the MULTIMOOSRAL approach (see Section 4.3) to rank the alternatives.

5. Results and Discussion

We use the linguistic rating scale for criteria rating as given in Table 4.

The experts expressed their rating to prioritize the criteria as per their relative importance as given in Table 5. In our problem, we have 9 criteria. Use of LBWA helps to reduce the number of pairwise comparisons substantially than AHP. In addition, for a large criteria set, AHP finds it difficult to reach the consistency. Therefore, LBWA provides the advantages like reduction in computational complexity and subjective bias.

We apply the SWGA operator (see expression (8)) to aggregate the individual responses for obtaining the SF criteria rating matrix whose elements are SFNs and apply expression (9) to derive corresponding weights. Table 6 provides the SF criteria rating matrix and corresponding score values.

We now proceed to find out the criteria weights using the LBWA method. We follow the procedural steps as given in Section 4.2. As we see, C1 has the highest score value of 0.638. Therefore, we compare all other criteria with respect to C1. The integer value assigned to C1 is zero. Following the steps of LBWA, we partition the criteria as C1, C7, C4, C2, C5, and C6 in level 1 and C8, C9, and C3 in the level 2. The final criteria weights are given in Table 7 along with their respective functional values.

Now we move to rank the alternatives using experts’ opinions. The experts carried out field visits to investigate the leanness of the organizations and rate the sample units with respect to the criteria considered using the rating scale as given in Table 8.

Accordingly, the sample units (alternatives) are rated by the individual experts (see Tables 9–11).

We then aggregate the opinions using SWGA operator and derive the SFEM (see Table 12). We normalize the SFEM using expression (36) and apply expression (9) to get the score values of the SFEM and NSFEM (see Tables 13 and 14).

To find the weighted NSFEM, we use expression (4), and thereafter, we find the score values of the weighted NSFEM (see Table 15). This is required for the usual steps of MULTIMOOSRAL starting from step 3 (see Section 4.3).

We now follow the usual steps of MULTIMOOSRAL (see Section 4.3) to find out the normalized overall utility values of the alternatives using RS, RP, AF, FMF, and LA and to calculate the total overall utility values. Table 16 provides the final ranking of the alternatives.

5.1. Validation and Sensitivity Analysis

The results obtained by using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, especially in a group decision-making setup, are vulnerable to the changes in the given conditions such as changes in the criteria values, alternative and criteria set, exclusion or inclusion of the criteria and alternatives, and changes in the weights, among others [90–92]. Therefore, it is essential to examine the validity testing and checking of stability in the results.

In this paper, for validation purpose, we use the methodology followed in [93–95]. We utilize the score values of the SFEM to carry out the usual steps of the TOPSIS method [96]. TOPSIS allows the researchers to compare the alternatives in terms of Euclidean distance with respect to two extreme points, i.e., positive and negative ideal solutions. It considers the alternatives having farthest distance from negative ideal as the best one. PROBID considers all possible positive ideal solutions and also takes into account the distance from the average point like EDAS. Table 17 shows that the ranking results obtained from our proposed methodology and SF score based TOPSIS are consistent to each other. Table 18 statistically confirms the statement by Spearman’s rank correlation test.

To examine the stability in the result, we carry out the sensitivity analysis as conducted in [97–99]. Table 19 exhibits the scheme for sensitivity analysis. We exchange the weights of the top priority criterion, C1, with all others and carry out eight experiments. Figure 3 provides the result of sensitivity analysis and pictorially confirms that our method provides absolutely stable result. However, to statistically confirm the fact, we conduct Friedman test (Table 20) and Kendall’s test (Table 21) using the final overall utility values of the alternatives under different experiments. We observe that statistically no significant change is incurred. Figure 4 reflects the findings of Tables 20 and 21.

5.2. Comparative Analysis of the Present Framework with Some of the Existing Models

The MULTIMOOSRAL method considers logarithmic approximations in addition to weighted sum and weighted product (as used in WASPAS and CoCoSo methods). Like COPRAS method, MULTIMOOSRAL algorithm also considers ratio system and reference point. Therefore, MULTIMOOSRAL can be considered as an improved version of MCDM method that works with a wide range of performance values of the alternatives. According to Brauers and Zavadskas [100], a combination of three different types of operators provides more reliable and robust solution. Therefore, MULTIMOOSRAL provides reasonably robust and reliable solutions by combining three different types of operators, namely, weighted sum, weighted product, and logarithmic approximations. Further, unlike MOORA and MULTIMOORA approaches (that uses dominance theory), the present method ranks the alternative units using a combined performance scores of four types of utility values. On the other hand, LBWA works efficiently with a large criteria set, reduces the computational complexity, and reasonably offsets the subjective bias. Furthermore, it provides a greater flexibility to the decision makers by varying the values of elasticity coefficient. With these added methodological benefits and use of SFN, our model allows the decision maker to derive more accurate and reliable decisions while working with imprecise information.

6. Discussion

We observe that experts put more emphasis on committed leadership, waste reduction, and customer value which are the cornerstone principles of lean. The primary focus is on achieving more with less, and hence, technology usage does not fetch more weight. We find that committed leadership, waste reduction, and customer value are given more weightage by the experts for achieving leanness in SMEs. Furthermore, the results show that medium and small units with focused product line (A1 and A5) score high in terms of leanness. The findings imply that there is a need to focus on microunits and incorporate policies to revive them through effective implementation of LM.

The present paper provides a SFS-based analysis that provides more flexibility with reasonably less complexity to the analysts as compared with IFS, PyFS, PFS, and qROFS. Therefore, our framework has extended the growing strand of literature with a new MCDM framework with uncertain information that can work with larger criteria and alternative set with reasonable accuracy and stability. However, the model proposed in this paper may be fine-tuned with using type 3 fuzzy logic which is an improved version of generalized type 2 fuzzy system for handling susceptibility of MCDM models in handling uncertainties. In recent times, several researchers (for example, [101–103]) have used type 3 fuzzy based analysis in solving complex real-life problems. These models may be used in solving our problem and a comparative analysis may be carried out.

Nevertheless, the findings of the present paper provide an important direction to the strategic decision makers as it is revealed that concentrated effort in product offerings lowers the possibility of waste which might help in achieving leanness. After achieving leanness, the organization may take the practice forward for reaching to the level of maturity and move forward to customization. An organization wide approach supported by top management is the necessity. However, we contend that in Indian context, still microorganizations need policy support and fund mobilization with better governance for achieving leanness.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, we have conducted a case study on six MSME sample units producing engineering products. We have presented a new hybrid SF-LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL framework to carry out a comparative assessment of the leanness of the sample units. We consider 9 criteria from the perspectives of leadership, supplier focus, customer focus, process management, waste, culture, human resource focus, technology use, and communication and awareness. In this aspect, the present study provides a more holistic approach than the existing research papers which multi-criteria-based comparison of MSMEs vis-à-vis leanness is quite rare. The criteria are obtained through literature survey and opinions of the three experts who took part in our study. The experts carried out a field study and rated the sample units. We observe that medium and small units having focused product portfolio score high in terms of leanness. The present paper provides a holistic multi-criteria-based assessment of leanness which is not seen in plenty in Indian context. Further, we propose a novel extension of LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL with SFN. SFNs have been proven as superior than IFS, PyFS, and PFS as evident from the discussion in the extant literature. Therefore, the present work provides a more flexible and effective framework for group decision making. Further, in the previous work, we have not noticed any attempt to integrate LBWA and MULTIMOOSRAL approach although these methods possess substantial benefits. The result of validation test and sensitivity analysis suggests that our method provides stable and accurate result.

However, one of the limitations of our model is that given the close rating of the criteria, our model may not give distinct partitioning of the criteria. In a further study, one may attempt to examine the causal relationship of the criteria with the soft and hard outcomes of practicing LM. Further, our model may be tested in other complex scenarios. In addition, in the present study, we did not calculate the time complexity which may be another limitation. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that our model may solve other complex real-life problems and the framework of measuring leanness shall provide a holistic and easy way to assess the performance of the MSME units.

Data Availability

The responses used to support the findings of this study are provided in the paper. For the sake of confidentiality, the names of the respondents are not disclosed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in conducting this research work and writing this paper.

References

J. G. Sarhan, B. Xia, S. Fawzia, A. Karim, A. O. Olanipekun, and V. Coffey, “Framework for the implementation of lean construction strategies using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique: a case of the Saudi construction industry,” Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, “Implications of industry 4.0 vis-à-vis lean Six-Sigma: a multi-criteria group decision approach,” in Proceedings of the JD Birla International Management Conference on “Strategic Management in Industry, Technology Driven Operations Management, Kolkata, India, September 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
J. F. Krafcik, “Triumph of the lean production system,” Sloan Management Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 41–52, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
J. P. Womack, D. T. Jones, and D. Roos, The Machine that Changed the World: The story of Lean Production--Toyota’s Secret Weapon in the Global Car Wars that Is Now Revolutionizing World Industry, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
S. Gupta, M. Sharma, and M. V. Sunder, “Lean services: a systematic review,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1025–1056, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. J. Hopp and M. L. Spearman, “To pull or not to pull: what is the question?” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 133–148, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Anvari, N. Zulkifli, S. Sorooshian, and O. Boyerhassani, “An integrated design methodology based on the use of group AHP-DEA approach for measuring lean tools efficiency with undesirable output,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 70, no. 9-12, pp. 2169–2186, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. T. Pullan, M. Bhasi, and G. Madhu, “Decision support tool for lean product and process development,” Production Planning & Control, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 449–464, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chiarini and F. Brunetti, “What really matters for a successful implementation of Lean production? A multiple linear regression model based on European manufacturing companies,” Production Planning & Control, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 1091–1101, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Pal and S. Biswas, “A review of the critical factors affecting the success of lean implementation in Indian manufacturing organizations – challenges & way forward,” CBS Journal of Management Practices, vol. 2, pp. 103–112, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
IBEF report, “MSME Industry in India,” 2021, https://www.ibef.org/industry/msme.aspx.
View at: Google Scholar
I. R. Andaningsih and A. H. Susanto, “Empowering MSMEs in the creative economy of the agrobusiness industrial sector in the baranangsiang area, BogorCity, west java,” Asian Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 01, pp. 48–59, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
S. K. Das and M. Chakraborty, “A Forecasting Model for MSMEs of Manufacturing and Engineering Sector of India,” SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), vol. 48, no. 1, Article ID 09708464211054882, pp. 66–73, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gupta and V. Singh, “Determinants influencing the growth of MSMEs women entrepreneurs in India,” Gorteria Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 198–205, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
N. K. M. Tri Utari, “Marketing strategy of small and medium Enterprises (MSMES) through instagram in the marketing era 4.0,” Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis JAGADITHA, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Basak and M. D. Gupta, “Literature review on importance of MSMEs in empowerment of women participants,” Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 22, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
O. S. Ajuwon, S. Ikhide, and J. O. Akotey, “MSMEs and employment generation in Nigeria,” The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 229–249, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Dey, “MSMEs in India: it’s growth and prospects,” Abhinav National Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 26–33, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Bhattacharya and A. Ramachandran, “Lean manufacturing techniques–Implementation in Indian MSMEs and benefits realized thereof,” Indian Journal of Engineering and Materials Sciences, vol. 28, pp. 89–101, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
M. N. Mishra, A. Mohan, and A. Sarkar, “Role of lean six sigma in the Indian MSMEs during COVID-19,” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 697–717, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Atanassov and G. Gargov, “Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 343–349, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Yager, “Pythagorean fuzzy subsets,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Joint IFSA World congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), pp. 57–61, IEEE, Edmonton, Canada, June 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. R. Yager, “Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1222–1230, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. C. Cuong and V. Kreinovich, “Picture fuzzy sets,” Journal of Computer Science and Cybernetics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 409–420, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
B. C. Cuong and V. Kreinovich, “Picture Fuzzy Sets-A New Concept for Computational Intelligence Problems,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Third World congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT 2013), pp. 1–6, IEEE, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. K. Gündo˘gdu and C. Kahraman, “Spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (ahp) and its application to industrial robot selection,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, pp. 988–996, Springer, New York, NY, USA, January 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Smarandache, “A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic,” Philosophy, American Research Press, Mexico, MX, USA, pp. 1–141, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Atanassov, Geometrical Interpretation of the Elements of the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Objects, Preprint IM-MFAIS, Sofia, Bulgaria, pp. 1–89, 1989.
S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, T. Mahmood, F. Ghani, and T. Mahmood, “Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in multi-attribute decision making problems,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2829–2844, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Menekşe and H. Camgöz Akdağ, “Distance education tool selection using novel spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS,” Soft Computing, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1617–1635, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Senapati and R. R. Yager, “Fermatean fuzzy sets,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 663–674, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Žižović and D. Pamucar, “New model for determining criteria weights: level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model,” Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 126–137, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ulutaş, D. Stanujkic, D. Karabasevic et al., “Developing of a novel integrated MCDM MULTIMOOSRAL approach for supplier selection,” Informatica, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 145–161, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Seyedhosseini, A. E. Taleghani, A. Bakhsha, and S. Partovi, “Extracting leanness criteria by employing the concept of Balanced Scorecard,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, Article ID 10454, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. G. Azevedo, K. Govindan, H. Carvalho, and V. Cruz-Machado, “An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 66, pp. 85–94, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Almomani, A. Abdelhadi, A. Mumani, A. Momani, and M. Aladeemy, “A proposed integrated model of lean assessment and analytical hierarchy process for a dynamic road map of lean implementation,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 72, no. 1-4, pp. 161–172, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Patil, M. S. Kulkarni, and P. V. M. Rao, “A methodology for assessing leanness in NPD process,” ICoRD, Springer, New Delhi, India, vol. 13, pp. 735–744, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Maasouman and K. Demirli, “Development of a lean maturity model for operational level planning,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 83, no. 5-8, pp. 1171–1188, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Basu, S. Chowdhury, and P. A. Alam, “A model-based approach of flexibility and its impact on organization and employee welfare in lean environment,” Decision, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 269–277, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shrivastava, A. Bose, and S. Biswas, “Assessment of implementation of lean manufacturing practices in Indian plywood industries–A case study,” CBS Journal of Management Practices, vol. 3, pp. 35–46, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Narayanamurthy and A. Gurumurthy, “Systemic leanness: an index for facilitating continuous improvement of lean implementation,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1014–1053, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Soliman, T. A. Saurin, and M. J. Anzanello, “The impacts of lean production on the complexity of socio-technical systems,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 197, pp. 342–357, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Kroes, A. S. Manikas, and T. F. Gattiker, “Operational leanness and retail firm performance since 1980,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 197, pp. 262–274, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Garza-Reyes, I. E. Betsis, V. Kumar, and M. A. Radwan Al-Shboul, “Lean readiness–the case of the European pharmaceutical manufacturing industry,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 20–44, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. K. Tekez and G. Taşdeviren, “Measuring the influence values of lean criteria on leanness,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1391–1416, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Ravikumar, K. Marimuthu, P. Parthiban, and H. A. Zubar, “Evaluating lean execution performance in Indian MSMEs using SEM and TOPSIS models,” International Journal of Operational Research, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 104, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Prabhakar, A. Sagar, and R. Singh, “A comprehensive method for modelling leanness enablers and measuring leanness index in MSMEs using an integrated AHP-ISM-MICMAC and multi-grade fuzzy approach,” International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, vol. 13, no. 1/2/3, p. 377, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Singh, R. Rathi, and J. A. Garza-Reyes, “Analysis and prioritization of Lean Six Sigma enablers with environmental facets using best worst method: a case of Indian MSMEs,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 279, Article ID 123592, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Singh and R. Rathi, “Empirical investigation of lean six sigma enablers and barriers in Indian MSMEs by using multi-criteria decision making approach,” Engineering Management Journal, vol. 1-22, pp. 1–22, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. A. Triono, S. T. Ahmad, C. Ermiati, and H. Sihombing, “Can the financial performance of the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise production sector in Medan be a signal in the use of a leanness strategy?” F1000Research, vol. 10, no. 1183, p. 1183, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Prabhakar and A. Sagar, “Using hybrid AHP-ISM technique for modelling of lean management enablers in MSMEs,” Advances in Industrial and Production Engineering, Springer, Springer, Singapore, pp. 613–619, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Unver, M. Olgun, and E. Türkarslan, “Cosine and cotangent similarity measures based on Choquet integral for Spherical fuzzy sets and applications to pattern recognition,” Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Aydoğdu and S. Gül, “New entropy propositions for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets and their usage in an extension of ARAS (ARAS-IVSFS),” Expert Systems, vol. 39, no. 4, Article ID e12898, pp. 1–19, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Oztaysi, C. Kahraman, and S. C. Onar, “Spherical fuzzy REGIME method waste disposal location selection,” Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques for Emerging Conditions and Digital Transformation. INFUS 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, vol. 308, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Seyfi-Shishavan, F. Kutlu Gündoğdu, Y. Donyatalab, E. Farrokhizadeh, and C. Kahraman, “A novel spherical fuzzy bi-objective linear assignment method and its application to insurance options selection,” International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, vol. 20, no. 02, pp. 521–551, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. M. Sharaf, “Global supplier selection with spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, vol. 392, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Dogan, “Process mining technology selection with spherical fuzzy AHP and sensitivity analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 178, Article ID 114999, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Hashmi, S. T. Tehrim, M. Riaz, D. Pamucar, and G. Cirovic, “Spherical linear diophantine fuzzy soft rough sets with multi-criteria decision making,” Axioms, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 185, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Mahmood, M. Ilyas, Z. Ali, and A. Gumaei, “Spherical fuzzy sets-based cosine similarity and information measures for pattern recognition and medical diagnosis,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, Article ID 25835, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Farrokhizadeh, S. A. Seyfi-Shishavan, F. Kutlu Gündoğdu, Y. Donyatalab, C. Kahraman, and S. H. Seifi, “A spherical fuzzy methodology integrating maximizing deviation and TOPSIS methods,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 101, Article ID 104212, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Fernández-Martínez and J. M. Sánchez-Lozano, “Assessment of near-earth asteroid deflection techniques via spherical fuzzy sets,” Advances in Astronomy, vol. 2021, Article ID 6678056, 12 pages, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gul and M. F. Ak, “A modified failure modes and effects analysis using interval-valued spherical fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method: case study in a marble manufacturing facility,” Soft Computing, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 6157–6178, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Akram, C. Kahraman, and K. Zahid, “Group decision-making based on complex spherical fuzzy VIKOR approach,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 216, Article ID 106793, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Boltürk and S. Seker, “Present worth analysis using spherical fuzzy sets,” Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques for Emerging Conditions and Digital Transformation. INFUS 2021 Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, vol. vol 308, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Erdoğan, “Assessing farmers' perception to Agriculture 4.0 technologies: a new interval‐valued spherical fuzzy sets based approach,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1751–1801, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Kutlu Gündoğdu and C. Kahraman, “Hospital performance assessment using interval-valued spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,” Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 349–373, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Hamal and O. Senvar, “A novel integrated AHP and MULTIMOORA method with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets and single-valued spherical fuzzy sets to prioritize financial ratios for financial accounting fraud detection,” Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 337–364, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, S. Majumder, D. Pamucar, and S. K. Dawn, “An extended LBWA framework in picture fuzzy environment using actual score measures application in social enterprise systems,” International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 37–68, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas and D. Pamucar, “Facility location selection for b-schools in Indian context: a multi-criteria group decision based analysis,” Axioms, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 77, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Deveci, E. Özcan, R. John, C. F. Covrig, and D. Pamucar, “A study on offshore wind farm siting criteria using a novel interval-valued fuzzy-rough based Delphi method,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 270, Article ID 110916, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Jakovljevic, M. Zizovic, D. Pamucar, Ž. Stević, and M. Albijanic, “Evaluation of human resources in transportation companies using multi-criteria model for ranking alternatives by defining relations between ideal and anti-ideal alternative (RADERIA),” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 976, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Torkayesh and S. E. Torkayesh, “Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: an integrated MCDM approach,” Technology in Society, vol. 66, Article ID 101670, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Chien and K. J. Tu, “Establishing merger feasibility simulation model based on multiple-criteria decision-making method: case study of taiwan’s property management industry,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 2448, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yazdani, D. Pamucar, P. Chatterjee, and A. E. Torkayesh, “A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty,” Operations Management Research, pp. 1–30, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Božanić, D. Jurišić, and D. Erkić, “LBWA–Z-MAIRCA model supporting decision making in the army,” Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 87–110, 2020a.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Božanić, A. Ranđelović, M. Radovanović, and D. Tešić, “A hybrid lbwa-ir-mairca multi-criteria decision-making model for determination of constructive elements of weapons,” Facta Universitatis – Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 399, 2020b.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hristov, D. Pamucar, and M. E Amine, “Application of a D number based LBWA model and an interval MABAC model in selection of an automatic cannon for integration into combat vehicles,” Defence Science Journal, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 34–45, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ž. Jokić, D. Božanić, and D. Pamučar, “Selection of fire position of mortar units using LBWA and Fuzzy MABAC model,” Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 115–135, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Pamucar, M. Deveci, F. Canıtez, and V. Lukovac, “Selecting an airport ground access mode using novel fuzzy LBWA-WASPAS-H decision making model,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 93, Article ID 103703, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Pamučar, M. Žižović, D. Marinković, D. Doljanica, S. V. Jovanović, and P. Brzaković, “Development of a multi-criteria model for sustainable reorganization of a healthcare system in an emergency situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 7504, 2020b.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Torkayesh, D. Pamucar, F. Ecer, and P. Chatterjee, “An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 70, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Pamučar, M. Behzad, D. Božanić, and M. Behzad, “Decision making to support sustainable energy policies corresponding to agriculture sector: case study in Iran’s Caspian Sea coastline,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 292, Article ID 125302, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ecer, D. Pamucar, A. Mardani, and M. Alrasheedi, “Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment,” Renewable Energy, vol. 170, pp. 1156–1177, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Mousavi, A. Hafezalkotob, V. Ghezavati, and F. Abdi, “An integrated framework for new sustainable waste-to-energy technology selection and risk assessment: an R-TODIM-R-MULTIMOOSRAL approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 335, Article ID 130146, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, and L. Abdullah, “Child development influence environmental factors determined using spherical fuzzy distance measures,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 661, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kovač, S. Tadić, M. Krstić, and M. B. Bouraima, “Novel Spherical Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Assessment of Drone-Based City Logistics Concepts,” Complexity, Article ID 2374955, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ali, “A novel score function based CRITIC-MARCOS method with spherical fuzzy information,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 40, no. 8, p. 280, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. D. Pramanik, S. Biswas, S. Pal, D. Marinković, and P. Choudhury, “A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for resource selection in mobile crowd computing,” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 1713, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas and D. S. Pamučar, “Combinative distance based assessment (CODAS) framework using logarithmic normalization for multi-criteria decision making,” Serbian Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 321–340, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, D. Pamucar, S. Kar, and S. S. Sana, “A new integrated FUCOM–CODAS framework with fermatean fuzzy information for multi-criteria group decision-making,” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 12, p. 2430, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Pamucar, A. E. Torkayesh, and S. Biswas, “Supplier selection in healthcare supply chain management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a novel fuzzy rough decision-making approach,” Annals of Operations Research, pp. 1–43, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, D. Pamucar, P. Chowdhury, and S. Kar, “A new decision support framework with picture fuzzy information: comparison of video conferencing platforms for higher education in India,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 286–303, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, S. Majumder, and S. K. Dawn, “Comparing the Socioeconomic Development of G7 and BRICS Countries and Resilience to COVID-19: An Entropy–MARCOS Framework,” Business Perspectives and Research, vol. 10, no. 2, Article ID 22785337211015406, pp. 286–303, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Karmakar, P. Dutta, and S. Biswas, “Assessment of mutual fund performance using distance based multi-criteria decision making techniques-An Indian perspective,” Research Bulletin, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 17–38, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Pamucar, M. Žižović, S. Biswas, and D. Božanić, “A new logarithm methodology of additive weights (LMAW) for multi-criteria decision-making: application in logistics,” Facta Universitatis – Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 361, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas, “Measuring performance of healthcare supply chains in India: a comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,” Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 162–189, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Biswas and O. P. Anand, “Logistics competitiveness index-based comparison of BRICS and G7 countries: an integrated PSI-PIV approach,” IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 32–57, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
W. K. M. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas, “Robustness of MULTIMOORA: a method for multi-objective optimization,” Informatica, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. Tian, S. R. Yan, A. Mohammadzadeh et al., “Stability of interval type-3 fuzzy controllers for autonomous vehicles,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 21, p. 2742, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mohammadzadeh, M. H. Sabzalian, and W. Zhang, “An interval type-3 fuzzy system and a new online fractional-order learning algorithm: theory and practice,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1940–1950, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Wang, J. Tavoosi, A. Mohammadzadeh et al., “Non-singleton type-3 fuzzy approach for flowmeter fault detection: experimental study in a gas industry,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 21, p. 7419, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Sanjib Biswas 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.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

701

Downloads

632

Citations

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Different Approaches in Treating Uncertainty in the Application of Multicriteria Decision Modeling

A New Spherical Fuzzy LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Framework: Application in Evaluation of Leanness of MSMEs in India

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Related Work

3. Preliminaries

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Case Study

4.2. LBWA Method

4.3. MULTIMOOSRAL Method

4.4. Proposed SF-LBWA-MULTIMOOSRAL Method

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Validation and Sensitivity Analysis

5.2. Comparative Analysis of the Present Framework with Some of the Existing Models

6. Discussion

7. Conclusion

Data Availability

Conflicts of Interest

Authors’ Contributions

References

Copyright