Determination of Quality Value of Cotton Fiber Using Integrated Best-Worst Method-Revised Analytic Hierarchy Process

References

• Ahmadi, H. B., S. Kusi-Sarpong, and J. Rezaei. 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resources Conservation & Recycling 126:99–14. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akgül, E., M. I. Bahtiyari, E. K. Aydoğan, and H. Benli. 2021. Use of topsis method for designing different textile products in coloration via natural source “madder”. Journal of Natural Fibers 19 (14):8993–9008. doi:10.1080/15440478.2021.1982106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, A., and T. Rashid. 2021. Best–worst method for robot selection. Soft Computing 25:563–83. doi:10.1007/s00500-020-05169-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banwet, D. K., and A. Majumdar. 2014. Comparative analysis of AHP-TOPSIS and GA-TOPSIS methods for selection of raw materials in textile industries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Bali, Indonesia. 2071–80.
   Google Scholar
• Belton, V., and T. Gear. 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11 (3):228–30. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, S., P. P. Das, and V. Kumar. 2017. A grey fuzzy logic approach for cotton fibre selection. Journal of the Institute of Engineers (India): Series E 98 (1):1–9. doi:10.1007/s40034-017-0099-7.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, P., and S. Chakraborty. 2018. Development of a meta-model for the determination of technological value of cotton fiber using design of experiments and the TOPSIS method. Journal of Natural Fibers 15 (6):882–95. doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1376303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. -H. 2016. Evaluative model of projects of landscape ecological planning-application of AHP method. Journal of Architecture Planning 17:117–36.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C. -H. 2020. A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for building material supplier selection based on entropy-AHP weighted TOPSIS. Entropy 22:259. doi:10.3390/e22020259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, S., and A. Ghosh. 2021. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for grading of raw jute. Journal of Natural Fibers 18 (5):685–93. doi:10.1080/15440478.2019.1645788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghaffari, S., A. Arab, J. Nafari, and M. Manteghi. 2017. Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM. Decision Science Letters 6 (3):295–306. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2016.12.001.
   Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee, M. K., M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene. 2017. Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 33:1627–38. doi:10.3233/JIFS-17184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorabaee, M. K., E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene. 2016. A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 50 (3):25–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, A, and Das, S. 2013. Raw Jute Grading By Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method. Journal of Natural Fibers. 10(2): 136–146. doi:10.1080/15440478.2012.763203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, S. K. 2022. Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for selection of handmade carpets. Journal of Natural Fibers 19 (2):658–68. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1758864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, C. L., and K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
   Google Scholar
• Jing, Y., and T. Y. Chen. 2021. Selection of cotton fabrics using Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of Natural Fibers. doi:10.1080/15440478.2021.1982439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing, Y., and T. Y. Chen. 2022. Pythagorean fuzzy sets combined with the PROMETHEE method for the selection of cotton woven fabric. Journal of Natural Fibers. doi:10.1080/15440478.2022.2072993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, B. C., S. W. Park, Y. J. Koo, and S. H. Jeong. 2000. A simplified optimization in cotton bale selection and laydown. Fibres and Polymers 1 (1):55–58. doi:10.1007/BF02874877.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, F., M. Brunelli, and J. Rezaei. 2020. Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega 96:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A. 2010. Selection of raw materials in textile spinning industry using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. Fibers and Polymers 11 (1):121–27. doi:10.1007/s12221-010-0121-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A., P. K. Majumdar, and B. Sarkar. 2005. Determination of the technological value of cotton fibre: A comparative study of the traditional and multiple-criteria decision-making approaches. AUTEX Research Journal 5 (2):71–80.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A., B. Sarkar, and P. K. Majumdar. 2004. Application of analytic hierarchy process for the selection of cotton fibers. Fibers & Polymers 5 (4):297–302. doi:10.1007/BF02875528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A., B. Sarkar, and P. K. Majumdar. 2005. Determination of quality value of cotton fibre using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method of multi-criteria decision-making. The Journal of the Textile Institute 96:303–09. doi:10.1533/joti.2005.0013.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A., and S. P. Singh. 2014. A new approach to determine the quality value of cotton fibres using multi-criteria decision making and genetic algorithm. Fibers and Polymers 15 (12):2658–64. doi:10.1007/s12221-014-2658-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumdar, A., M. K. Tiwari, A. Agarwal, and K. Prajapat. 2021. A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria. Operations Research Perspectives 8:100185. doi:10.1016/j.orp.2021.100185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millet, I., and T. L. Saaty. 2000. On the relativity of relative measures – accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121 (1):205–12. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00040-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2020. Selection of cotton fabrics using EDAS method. Journal of Natural Fibres 19 (7):2706–18. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1821289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2021. Grading of raw jute fibres using criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) and range of value (ROV) approach of multi-criteria decision-making. Journal of Natural Fibres 19 (14):7517–33. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15440478.2021.1951422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, A. 2022. Selection of khadi fabrics for optimal comfort properties using multi-criteria decision-making technique. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 27 (1):118–40. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/RJTA-08-2021-0108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra, A., A. Majumdar, A. Ghosh, P. K. Majumdar, and D. Banerjee. 2015. Selection of handloom fabrics for summer clothing using multi-criteria decision making techniques. Journal of Natural Fibers 12 (1):61–71. doi:10.1080/15440478.2014.892464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogazhy, E. Y. E., and Y. Gowayed. 1995a. Theory and practice of cotton fibre selection, Part I: Fibre selection techniques and bale picking algorithms. Textile Research Journal 65 (1):32–40. doi:10.1177/004051759506500105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogazhy, E. Y. E., and Y. Gowayed. 1995b. Theory and practice of cotton fibre selection, Part II: Sources of cotton mix variability and critical factors affecting it. Textile Research Journal 65 (2):75–84. doi:10.1177/004051759506500203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. 2015a. Best-worst multi criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J. 2015b. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64:126–30. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J., T. Nispeling, J. Sarkis, and L. Tavasszy. 2016. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production 135:577–88. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J., J. Wang, and L. Tavasszy. 2015. Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (23):9152–64. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1983. Priority setting in complex problems. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 30 (3):140–55. doi:10.1109/TEM.1983.6448606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1986. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32:841–55. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48:9–26. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. 1994. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 74:426–47. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L., and L. G. Vargas. 1993. Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17 (4–5):13–18. doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93)90171-T.
   Google Scholar
• USTER News Bulletin. 1991. Measurement of the quality characteristics of cotton fibre. 38 :23–31.
   Google Scholar