A Fuzzy MCDM Model for Facility Location Evaluation Based on Quality of Life

  • AditiEmail author
  • Arshia Kaul
  • Jyoti Dhingra Darbari
  • P. C. Jha
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1048)


The decision for facility location selection is an important one in the context of management of Supply Chain (SC). Facility location decision affects the overall SC performance, since there is an influence on the cost, delivery speed, service levels and effectiveness of SC. Hence it is essential to evaluate the impact of selection of each facility location. In addition to the traditional criteria such as market, labor, transportation, community and climate, Quality of Life (QOL) has also become an important factor for sustainable facility location selection decision. Since QOL includes aspects of social, economic, environmental, and psychological well-being therefore quantification of QOL for facility location evaluation is a challenging task. Due to subjectivity of the decision makers, vagueness sets in the decision making process and hence fuzzy decision making approach is required for handling the vagueness in assessment of QOL factor. Thus the present study considers an effective integrated approach using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Fuzzy Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) for evaluation of facility locations, considering the criteria of QOL. FAHP is used for calculating the weight of each QOL criterion and FTOPSIS methodology is used for computing the rank of the facility location options under the fuzzy environment. The application of this integrated approach is applied to case of an Indian manufacturing company.


Facility location selection Quality of life FAHP FTOPSIS 


  1. 1.
    Kalantari, A.H.: Facility location selection for global manufacturing. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Chu, T.-C.: Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 10(6), 687–701(2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feneri, A.M., Vagiona, D., Karanikolas, N.: Multi-criteria decision making to measure quality of life: an integrated approach for implementation in the urban area of Thessaloniki, Greece. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 10(4), 573–587 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World commission on Environment and Development: Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  5. 5.
    Lambiri, D., Biagi, B., Royuela, V.: Quality of life in the economic and urban economic literature. Soc. Indic. Res. 84(1), 1–25 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christodoulou, P., Fleet, D., Hanson, P., Phaal, R., Probert, D., Shi, Y.: Making the right things in the right places: a structured approach to developing and exploiting manufacturing footprint strategy. Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oshri, I.: Offshoring Strategies: Evolving Captive Center Models. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chadawada, R., Sarfaraz, A., Jenab, K., Pourmohammadi, H.: Integration of AHP-QFD for selecting facility location. Benchmarking Int. J. 22(3), 411–425 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tesfazghi, E.S., Martinez, J.A., Verplanke, J.J.: Variability of quality of life at small scales: Addis Ababa, Kirkos Sub-City. Soc. Indic. Res. 98(1), 73–88 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Das, D.: Urban quality of life: a case study of Guwahati. Soc. Indic. Res. 88(2), 297–310 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marans, R.W.: Quality of urban life studies: an overview and implications for environment-behaviour research. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 35, 9–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darbari, J.D., Agarwal, V., Yadavalli, V.S., Galar, D., Jha, P.C.: A multi-objective fuzzy mathematical approach for sustainable reverse supply chain configuration. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 11(1), 1–12 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farahani, R.Z., Asgari, N.: Combination of MCDM and covering techniques in a hierarchical model for facility location: a case study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 176(3), 1839–1858 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farahani, R.Z., SteadieSeifi, M., Asgari, N.: Multiple criteria facility location problems: a survey. Appl. Math. Model. 34(7), 1689–1709 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shukla, R.K., Garg, D., Agarwal, A.: An integrated approach of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2(1), 415–437 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kishore, P., Padmanabhan, G.: An integrated approach of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS to select logistics service provider. J. Manuf. Sci. Prod. 16, 51–59 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ayhan, M.B.: A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in a Gear motor company. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2886 (2013)
  18. 18.
    Nazam, M., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Ahmad, J., Hashim, M.: A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. Int. J. Supply Oper. Manag. 2(1), 548 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, vol. 137. New York (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chou, S.W., Chang, Y.C.: The implementation factors that influence the ERP (enterprise resource planning) benefits. Decis. Support Syst. 46(1), 149–157 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aditi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arshia Kaul
    • 2
  • Jyoti Dhingra Darbari
    • 3
  • P. C. Jha
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Operational ResearchUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Asia-Pacific Institute of ManagementNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsLady Shri Ram College, University of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations