A Hybrid Fuzzy Analytic Network Process ( FANP ) and Data Envelopment Analysis ( DEA ) Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Rice Supply Chain

In the market economy, competition is typically due to the difficulty in selecting the most suitable supplier, one that is capable to help a business to develop a profit to the highest value threshold and capable to meet sustainable development features. In addition, this research discusses a wide range of consequences from choosing an effective supplier, including reducing production cost, improving product quality, delivering the product on time, and responding flexibly to customer requirements. Therefore, the activities noted above are able to increase an enterprise’s competitiveness. It can be seen that selecting a supplier is complex in that decision-makers must have an understanding of the qualitative and quantitative features for assessing the symmetrical impact of the criteria to reach the most accurate result. In this research, the multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) approach was proposed to solve supplier selection problems. The authors collected data from 25 potential suppliers, and the four main criteria within contain 15 sub-criteria to define the most effective supplier, which has viewed factors, including financial efficiency guarantee, quality of materials, ability to deliver on time, and the conditioned response to the environment to improve the efficiency of the industry supply chain. Initially, fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) is used to evaluate and rank these criteria, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business. Subsequently, data envelopment analysis (DEA) models, including the Charnes Cooper Rhodes model (CCR model), Banker Charnes Cooper model (BCC model), and slacks-based measure model (SBM model), were proposed to rank suppliers. The result of the model has proposed 7/25 suppliers, which have a condition response to the enterprises’ supply requirements.


Introduction
The task of selecting suppliers becomes more important in today's competitive and global environment when it is impractical or virtually impossible to create high-quality, low-cost, successful products without a vendor.For businesses today, vendor selection is one of the most important and indispensable components of the supply chain function of Florez-Lopez [1].The enterprises' expected goal of selecting a vendor is necessary to reduce the risk in buying, making an optimum decision, and establishing a sustainable alliance between buyers and suppliers [2].Basically, choosing suppliers is a decision-making process because a business expects to obtain a supplier [3].Additionally, it requires a powerful analytical approach, via utilizing decision-support tools, which is capable of addressing multiple criteria [4].Incidentally, the supplier's price includes many qualitative and qualitative conflicts.
The author represents two techniques, i.e., DEA and the FANP, which are used to design a method for evaluating suppliers.In order to obtain the accurate result as the chosen supplier based on the frontier point of the DEA model from input and output decision-makers (DMUs) [5].The drawback of DEA, related to this study, is the requirement of data for various inputs and outputs to be in a quantitative format.This DEA limitation is addressed by analyzing the qualitative factors/attributes associated with the supplier using FANP.FANP is a more general form of the decentralized process, which includes the feedback and interdependencies of decision attributes and alternatives.This additional feature provides a more accurate and robust approach when modeling a complex decision-making environment [6].
The decision-making process is designed to provide a holistic approach in which the relevant factors and criteria are integrated into the FANP's decentralized network.Different relationships are combined in these structures and then both judgment and logic are used to estimate the relative effect from which the overall response is derived [7].The FANP model used here provides a unique quantitative value for vendor-specific qualitative factors and is based on buyers' preferences and perceptions.This quantitative value from FANP for each supplier is used as a qualitative benefit in the DEA model to obtain the ranking or performance of different suppliers.
This research proposed hybrid FANP and DEA approaches for supplier selection in the rice supply chain, which also considers green issues under uncertain environment conditions.The aim of this research is to provide a useful guideline for supplier selection based on qualitative and quantitative factors (including the main criteria, such as financial, delivery services, qualitative factors, and environmental management systems) to improve the efficiency of supplier selection in the rice supply chain and other industries.
In the remainder of this paper, this research provides the platform data to further support the need of the development of a decision approach.Then, the synthetic supplier evaluation approach was applied to a case study of a company, which could be used for the explanation of the findings.Finally, this paper ends with a summary, and conclusions are made.

Supplier Selection Methods
Aissaoui et al. [8] presented a literature review that covers the entire purchasing process, considered both parts and services outsourcing activities, and covers Internet-based procurement environments, such as electronic marketplace auctions.Govindan et al. [9] presented a literature review for multi-criteria decision-making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection.Chai et al. [10] provided a systematic literature review on articles published from 2008 to 2012 on the application of DM techniques for supplier selection.
Wu and Blackhurst [11] proposed a methodology termed augmented DEA, which has enhanced discriminatory power over basic DEA models to rank suppliers.Amirteimoori and Khoshandam [12] developed a DEA model for evaluating the performance of suppliers and manufacturers in supply chain operations.Lin et al. [13] provided a MCDM model by combining the Delphi method and the ANP method for evaluating and selecting suppliers for the sustainable operation and development of enterprises in the aerospace industry.Galankashi et al. [14] proposed an integrated balanced scorecard (BSC) and fuzzy analytic hierarchical process (FAHP) model to select suppliers in the automotive industry.Kilincci and Onal [15] used a fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company.
Tyagi et al. [16] proposed fuzzy AHP and AHP methods to prioritize the alternatives of the supply chain performance system.Karsak and Dursun [17] proposed a fuzzy MCDM model including the quality function deployment (QFD), fusion of fuzzy information, and 2-tuple linguistic representation for supplier evaluation and selection.Chen et al. [18] proposed a hybrid AHP and TOPSIS for evaluating and ranking the potential suppliers.Guo et al. [19] used fuzzy MCDM approaches for green supplier selection in apparel manufacturing.Wu et al. [20] constructed a multiple criteria decision-making model for the selection of fishmeal suppliers.Hu et al. [21] proposed a hybrid fuzzy DEA/AHP methodology for ranking units in a fuzzy environment.He and Zhang [22] used a hybrid evaluation model based on factor analysis (FA), data envelopment analysis (DEA), with analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for a supplier selection from the perspective of a low-carbon supply chain.
Parkouhi et al. [23] used the fuzzy analytic network process and VlseKriterijuska Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) techniques for supplier selection.Wan et al. [24] proposed a hybrid DEA and Grey Model (1,1) approach for partner selection in the supply chain of Vietnam's textile and apparel industry.Wu et al. [25] used the fuzzy Delphi method, ANP, and TOPSIS for supplier selection.Rezaeisaray et al. [26] proposed a hybrid DEMATLE, FANP, and DEA model for outsourcing supplier selection in pipe and fittings manufacturing.Rouyendegh and Erol [27] applied the DEA-fuzzy ANP for department ranking at Iran Amirkabir University.Fuzzy set theory formalized by Zadeh [28] is an effective tool, which has been widely used in the supplier selection decision process because it provides a suitable language to transform imprecise criteria to precise criteria.
Junior et al. [29] presented a comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection.The linear programming of data envelopment analysis (DEA), which is proposed by Charnes et al. [30], and is able to produce the result of measured efficiency without having specific weights for inputs and outputs or specify the form of the production function, is a nonparametric technique used to measure the relative efficiency of peer decision-making units with multiple inputs and outputs [31,32].In the supplier's evaluation and selection process, many researchers calculated the supplier's performance by using the ratio of weighted outputs to weighted inputs [32].Thus, the integrated FANP and DEA method is used to determine supplier selection criteria and select supplier in this paper.
Talluri et al. [33] provided vendor evaluation models by presenting a chance-constrained data envelopment analysis (CCDEA) approach in the presence of multiple performance measures that are uncertain.Saen [34] applied a DEA model for ranking suppliers in the presence of nondiscretionary factors.Saen [35] also proposed a new AR-IDEA model for supplier selection.Saen and Zohrehbandian [36] proposed a DEA approach for supplier selection.Saen [37] proposed an innovative method, which is based on imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA) to select the best suppliers in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal data.Lo Storto [38] proposed a double DEA framework to support decision making in the choice of advanced manufacturing technologies.Adler et al. [39] reviewed of ranking method in the data envelopment analysis context.Lo Storto [40] presented a peeling DEA-game cross efficiency procedure to classify suppliers.
Kuo et al. [41] developed a supplier selection system through integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEA on an auto lighting System Company in Taiwan.Kuo and Lin [42] used ANP and DEA for supplier selection.
Taibi and Atmani [43] proposed a MCDM model combining fuzzy AHP with GIS and decision rules for industrial site selection.Molinera et al. [44] used fuzzy ontologies and multi-granular linguistic modelling methods for solving MCGDM problems under environments with a high number of alternatives.Adrian et al. [45] proposed a conceptual model development of big data analytics implementation assessment effect on decision making.
Staníčková and Melecký used DEA models to evaluate the performances of Visegrad Four (V4) countries and regions [46].Schaar and Sherry have been shown to contribute to the overall performance efficiency of the air transportation network by used three DEA models (CCR, BCC and SBM) [47].

Criteria and Sub-Criteria for Supplier Selection
The initial criteria for the supplier set are developed based on a literature study.Financial: The firm should require its suppliers to have a sound financial position.Financial strength can be a good indicator of the supplier's long-term stability.A solid financial position also helps ensure that performance standards can be maintained and that products and services will continue to be available [48].
Delivery and service: A firm can use service performance criteria to evaluate the benefits provided by supplier services.When considering services, a firm needs to clearly define its expectations since there are few uniform, established service standards to draw upon.Since any purchase involves some degree of service, such as order processing, delivery, and support, a firm should always include some service criteria in its evaluation.If the supplier provides a solution combining products and services, the firm should be sure to adequately represent its service needs in the selection criteria [48].The suppliers have to follow the predefined delivery schedule for achieving on-time delivery.All the manufacturers want to work with the supplier who can manage the supply chain system on time and has the ability for following the exact delivery schedule table [49].
Qualitative: Qualitative criteria are developed to measure important aspects of the supplier's business: business experience and position among competitors, expert labor, technical capabilities and facilities, operational control, and quality [50].
Environmental management system: Due to increasing awareness about environmental degradation manufacturing companies and customers are both becoming alert of environmental protection [51].This has led stakeholders of companies to ensure safe practices, like pollution control, reuse, recovery, etc.It includes criteria like pollution control: resource consumption of raw materials, use of environmentally friendly technology and materials, design capability for reduced consumption of materials/energy, reuse, and recycling of materials.To reduce the harm to the environment, organizations should also consider factors like permit requirements, compliance requirements, strategic considerations, climatic considerations, and government policy [52,53].
There are four main criteria and some sub-criteria, as shown in Table 1.

Research Development
Figure 1 illustrates the selection process, which is sequentially presented in three steps.In the first step, the decision-maker examines the material, interviews the experts, and surveys managers to determine the criteria and sub-criteria affecting to decision making.In the second step data are then processed using the FANP method to rank the criteria.Results from the FANP method are used for the input and output of the DEA model.The DEA model is implemented in the final stage.

Research Development
Figure 1 illustrates the selection process, which is sequentially presented in three steps.In the first step, the decision-maker examines the material, interviews the experts, and surveys managers to determine the criteria and sub-criteria affecting to decision making.In the second step data are then processed using the FANP method to rank the criteria.Results from the FANP method are used for the input and output of the DEA model.The DEA model is implemented in the final stage.Step 1: Determining evaluation criteria and sub-criteria Determine the key criteria and sub-criteria for a comprehensive assessment of the potential supplier.At this stage, the identification of key criteria and sub-criteria is based on a review of the literature and scientific reports related to the content of the research to determine the necessary criteria for the topic [50].After identifying the groups of criteria required, the decision-maker should select the potential supplier that matches the set criteria.Here, the criteria are defined as four main criteria and 15 sub-criteria, as shown in Figure 2.

Step 2: Implementing the FANP technique
Incorporating hybrid fuzzy set theory into the ANP model is the most effective tool for addressing complex problems of decision-making, which has a connection with various qualitative criteria [37].As can be seen from the solution algorithm in this technique, as presented in Figure 3, at first, the decision-making hierarchical structure is determined to assist the selection [71].Step 1: Determining evaluation criteria and sub-criteria Determine the key criteria and sub-criteria for a comprehensive assessment of the potential supplier.At this stage, the identification of key criteria and sub-criteria is based on a review of the literature and scientific reports related to the content of the research to determine the necessary criteria for the topic [50].After identifying the groups of criteria required, the decision-maker should select the potential supplier that matches the set criteria.Here, the criteria are defined as four main criteria and 15 sub-criteria, as shown in Figure 2.
Step 2: Implementing the FANP technique Incorporating hybrid fuzzy set theory into the ANP model is the most effective tool for addressing complex problems of decision-making, which has a connection with various qualitative criteria [37].
As can be seen from the solution algorithm in this technique, as presented in Figure 3, at first, the decision-making hierarchical structure is determined to assist the selection [71]. Step

Fuzzy Set Theory
Fuzzy set was proposed by Zadeh to solve problems existing in uncertain environments [28].Fuzzy sets are functions that show the dependence degree of one fuzzy number on a set number.A tilde (~) is placed above any symbol representing a fuzzy set number.If  ̃ is a TFN, each value of the membership function is between [0, 1] and can be explained, as shown in Equation (1): Each degree of membership includes a left-and right-side representation of a TFN, as shown here: A TFN is shown in Figure 2.

Fuzzy Set Theory
Fuzzy set was proposed by Zadeh to solve problems existing in uncertain environments [28].Fuzzy sets are functions that show the dependence degree of one fuzzy number on a set number.A tilde (~) is placed above any symbol representing a fuzzy set number.If  ̃ is a TFN, each value of the membership function is between [0, 1] and can be explained, as shown in Equation (1): Each degree of membership includes a left-and right-side representation of a TFN, as shown here: A TFN is shown in Figure 2.

Fuzzy Set Theory
Fuzzy set was proposed by Zadeh to solve problems existing in uncertain environments.Fuzzy sets are functions that show the dependence degree of one fuzzy number on a set number.A tilde (~) is placed above any symbol representing a fuzzy set number.If A is a TFN, each value of the membership function is between [0, 1] and can be explained, as shown in Equation (1): Each degree of membership includes a left-and right-side representation of a TFN, as shown here: A TFN is shown in Figure 2.

Fuzzy Analytic Network Process
ANP does not require a strict hierarchical structure, such as AHP.It allows elements to control, and be controlled, by different levels or clusters of attributes.Several control elements are also present at the same level.Interdependence between factors and their level is defined as a systematic approach to feedback or interactions between elements.
During the ANP process, the elements will be compared pairwise using the expert rating scale, from which the weighting matrix is established.The weights are then adjusted by defining the product of the super matrix.
The AHP method provides a structured framework to set priorities for each level of the hierarchy by using pairwise comparisons quantitated with a priority scale of 1-9, as shown.In contrast, the ANP approach allows for more complex relationships between the elements and their ranks.The 1-9 scale for AHP is shown in Table 2.It is clear that the disadvantage of ANP in dealing with the impression and objectiveness in the pairwise comparison process has been improved in the fuzzy analytic network process.The FANP applies a range of values to incorporate the decision-makers' uncertainly [38], whereas the ANP model shows a crisp value.The author assigns the fuzzy conversion scale of this formula, which will be used in the Saaty [72] fuzzy prioritization approach, as shown in , and the triangular fuzzy number, as shown in Figure 3.

Importance Intensity
Triangular Fuzzy Scale (5, 6, 7) 8 (7, 8, 9) 9 (9,9,9) The reversed degree to O ab expressing the non-preference is also expressed by a triangular fuzzy number: ).By the way, the weights of criteria from the fuzzy Saaty's matrix can be divided into four steps [73]: Fuzzy synthetic extension calculation will transformed into TNT, called fuzzy synthetic extensions K a (k x a , k o a , k uv a ).using Equations ( 2)-( 4) [74]: Assign a = 1, 2, . . ., n, in which a and b specifically are triangular fuzzy number Weights of criteria are addressed by using relations of the fuzzy-valued.In this step, fuzzy synthetic extensions are blurred by using the min fuzzy extension of the valued relation ≤ given by Equation ( 5), and weights W i are calculated (for more detail, see [75]): For a, b = 1, 2, . . .., n.

3.
The standardization of the weights.If we expect to obtain the sum of weights within one matrix equal to 1, final weights w i are solved using Equation ( 7): For a, b = 1, 2, . . ., n.

4.
An assessment of a Saaty's matrix consistency.In the line with [74], a consistency of the matrix is sufficient if inequality from Equation ( 8) holds: where λ is a symbol for the arithmetic mean of the maximum real eigenvalues of the matrices (a ξ ab ) 1≤a,b≤n , ξ ∈ {x, o, v} for a, b = 1, 2, ..., n is the size of the Saaty's matrix, and RR represents a random index whose value depends on [74].

Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes Model (CCR Model)
Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (1978) [30] proposed a basic DEA model, called the CCR model: Due to constraints, the optimal value γ* is a maximum of 1.
DMU 0 is efficient if γ * = 1 and have at least one optimal f * > 0 and g* > 0. In addition, the fractional program can be presented as follows [76]: The Farrell [77] model of Equation (10) with variable γ and a nonnegative vector Equation ( 11) has a feasible solution, γ * = 1, β * 0 = 1, β * j = 0, (j = 0), which effects the optimal value γ * not greater than 1.The process will be repeated for each DMUj, j = 1, 2, . . ., n. DMUs are inefficient when γ * < 1, while DMUs are boundary points if γ * = 1.We avoid the weakly efficient frontier point by invoking a linear program as follows [76]: In this case, note that the choices the d − i and d + r do not affect the optimal γ * .The performance of DMU 0 achieves 100% efficiency if, and only if, both (1) γ * = 1 and (2) The performance of DMU 0 is weakly efficient if, and only if, both (1) γ * = 1 and (2) d − * i = 0 and d + r = 0 for i or r in optimal alternatives.Thus, the preceding development amounts to solving the problem as follows [76]: In this case, d − i and d + r variables will be used to convert the inequalities into equivalent equations.This is similar to solving Equation (11) in two stages by first minimizing γ and then fixing γ = γ * as in Equation ( 12).This would reset the objective from max to min, as in Equation ( 9), to obtain [76]: If the α > 0 and the non-Archimedean element is defined, the input models are similar to Equations ( 10) and ( 13), as follows [76]: and: The input-oriented CCR (CCR-I) has the dual multiplier model, expressed as [76]: The output-oriented CCR (CCR-O) has the dual multiplier model, expressed as [76]: Banker et al. proposed the input-oriented BBC model (BCC-I) [30], which is able to assess the efficiency of DMU 0 by solving the following linear program [76]: We avoid the weakly efficient frontier point by invoking the linear program as follows [76]: Therefore, this is the first multiplier form to solve the problem as follows [76]: The linear program in Equation (17) gives us the second multiplier form, which is expressed as [76]: max If g and f, which are mentioned in Equation ( 22), are vectors, the scalar v 0 may be positive or negative (or zero).Thus, the equivalent BCC fractional program is obtained from the dual program in Equation ( 22) as [76]: The DMU 0 can be called BCC-efficient if an optimal solution (γ * B , d − * , d + * ) is claimed in this two-phase process for Equation (17) satisfies γ * B = 1 and has no slack d − * = d + * = 0, then.The improved activity (γ * x − d − * , y + d + * ) also can be illustrated as BCC-efficient [76].
The output-oriented BCC model (BCC-O) is: From Equation ( 24), we have the associate multiplier form, which is expressed as [76]: f 0 is the scalar associated with ∑ n k=1 β k = 1.In conclusion, the authors achieve the equivalent (BCC) fractional programming formulation for Equation (25) [76]: The SBM model was introduced by Tone [78] (see also Pastor et al. [79]).

Input-Oriented SBM (SBM-I-C)
The input-oriented SBM under a constant-returns-to-scale assumption [76] is described as follows: The DMUs in the reference set R of (x c , y c ) are SBM-input-efficient.
In addition, the SBM-input-efficiency score must is lower than the CCR efficiency score.
). Tone's super SBM model [78] has proposed a slacks-based measure of efficiency (SBM model) that measures the efficiency of the units under evaluation using slack variables only.The super efficiency SBM model removes the evaluated unit DMUq from the set of units and looks for a DMU* with inputs x i *, i = 1, ..., m, and outputs y k *, k = 1, ..., r, being SBM (and CCR) efficient after this removal.The super SBM model is formulated as follow: The numerator in the ratio in Equation ( 29) can be explained as the distance of units DMUq and DMU* in input space and the average reduction rate of inputs of DMU* to inputs of DMUq.

Case Study
In this research, the authors collected 25 suppliers (DMU) in Vietnam.Information about the suppliers is shown in Table 4.The data collection of the FANP and hierarchical structure are introduced in Figure 4.A fuzzy comparison matrix for all criteria is shown in Table 5.During the defuzzification, we obtain the coefficients α = 0.5 and β = 0.5 (Tang and Beynon) [80].In it, α represents the uncertain environment conditions, and β represents the attitude of the evaluator is fair.A fuzzy comparison matrix for all criteria is shown in Table 5.During the defuzzification, we obtain the coefficients α = 0.5 and β = 0.5 (Tang and Beynon) [80].In it, α represents the uncertain environment conditions, and represents the attitude of the evaluator is fair.The remaining calculations are similar to the above, as well as the fuzzy number priority points.The real number priorities when comparing the main criteria pairs are presented in Table 6.We calculate the maximum individual values as follows: For CR, with n = 4 we obtain RI = 0.9: CR = 0.0827 1.12 = 0.0919 We have CR = 0.0919 ≤ 0.1, so the pairwise comparison data is consistent and does not need to be re-evaluated.The results of the pair comparison the main criteria are presented in Tables 7-11.Based on how the hierarchical structure was built, the pairwise comparison matrix was built through completing a questionnaire.Then, the received data to calculate the weight of supplier's indices to ensure the accuracy of judged inconsistency rate and other constraints are presented.
In summary, a graphic of the DEA model for analysis of DMUs (suppliers) along with three inputs and three outputs is shown in Figure 4.The results of the FANP model for the ranking of various suppliers on qualitative attributes are utilized in the output qualitative benefits of the DEA model [71,81].In our situation, inputs are those factors that organizations would consider as an improvement if they were decreased in value (i.e., smaller values are better), whereas outputs are those factors that organizations would consider as improvements if they were increased in value (i.e., larger is better).This is a standard approach when seeking to use DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision-making tool [71].There are three inputs and three outputs, as shown in Figure 5. model [71,81].In our situation, inputs are those factors that organizations would consider as an improvement if they were decreased in value (i.e., smaller values are better), whereas outputs are those factors that organizations would consider as improvements if they were increased in value (i.e., larger is better).This is a standard approach when seeking to use DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision-making tool [71].There are three inputs and three outputs, as shown in Figure 5.To aid in reducing scaling errors associated with the mathematical programming software packages, the dataset is mean normalized for each factor, i.e., each value in each column is divided by that column's mean score.This normalization procedure does not change the efficiency scores of the ratio-based DEA models.As previously mentioned, to help model the analysis as inputs and outputs, instead of the standard productivity efficiency measurement approach, assume that the inputs are those factors that improve as their values decrease and the outputs are those values that improve as their values increase [71].Raw data are provided by the case organization, as shown in Table 12.To aid in reducing scaling errors associated with the mathematical programming software packages, the dataset is mean normalized for each factor, i.e., each value in each column is divided by that column's mean score.This normalization procedure does not change the efficiency scores of the ratio-based DEA models.As previously mentioned, to help model the analysis as inputs and outputs, instead of the standard productivity efficiency measurement approach, assume that the inputs are those factors that improve as their values decrease and the outputs are those values that improve as their values increase [71].Raw data are provided by the case organization, as shown in Table 12.

Isotonicity Test
The variables of input and output for the correlation coefficient matrix should comply with the isotonicity premise.In other words, the increase of an input will not cause the decreasing output of another item.The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient test are shown in Table 13.Based on the results of Pearson correlation test, the results of all correlation coefficients are positive, thus meeting a basic assumption of the DEA model.Hence, we do not to change the input and output.

Results and Discussion
Supplier evaluation and selection have been identified as important issues that could affect the efficiency of a supply chain.It can be seen that selecting a supplier is complicated in that decision-makers must understand qualitative and quantitative features for assessing the symmetrical impact of the criteria to reach the most accurate result.
For the performance in an empirical study, the authors collected data from 25 suppliers in Vietnam.A hierarchical structure to select the best suppliers is built with four main criteria (including 15 sub-criteria).Completion of a questionnaire for analyzing the FANP model is done by interviewing experts, and surveying the managers and company's databases.The ANP model is combined with a fuzzy set, to evaluate the supplier selection criteria and define the priorities of each supplier, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business.Then, several DEA models are proposed for ranking suppliers.As a result, DMU 1, DMU 5, DMU 10, DMU 16, DMU 19, DMU 22, and DMU 23 are identified as efficient in all nine models, as shown in Table 7 [78], which have a conditioned response to the enterprises' supply requirements.Whereas for other DMUs, there were differences in the results, so the next research should include an improvement or review of data inputs to produce appropriate outputs, so that suppliers remain efficient.This integration model supports a great deal of corporate decision-making because of the DMU  The optimal weights and the slacks for each DMU using nine DEA models (CCR, BCC, and SBM, Super SBM) are shown from Tables A1-A18 in appendix section.

Conclusions
Many studies have applied the MCDM approach to various fields of science and engineering, and their numbers have been increasing over the past years.The fuzzy MCDM model has been applied to supplier selection problems.Although some studies have considered a review of applications of MCDM approaches in this field, little work has focused on this problem in a fuzzy environment.This is a reason why hybrid ANP with fuzzy logic and DEA is proposed in this study.
Initially, we proposed the ANP model combined with a fuzzy set, to evaluate supplier selection criteria and define a priority of each supplier, which are able to be utilized to clarify important criteria that directly affect the profitability of the business.The FANP can be used for ranking suppliers but the number of supplier selections is practically limited because of the number of pairwise comparisons that need to be made, and a disadvantage of the FANP approach is that input data, expressed in linguistic terms, depend on the experience of decision-makers and, thus, involves subjectivity.This is a reason why several DEA models are proposed for ranking suppliers in the final stage.The DEA model can handle hundreds of suppliers with multiple inputs and outputs for the best supplier rating.The FANP-DEA integration model supports a great deal of corporate decision-making because of the effectiveness and complication of this model, for exactly choosing the most suitable supplier.Finally, this research will provide a potential suppliers list, which has a conditioned response to the enterprises' supply requirements.
The main contribution of this research is to develop complete approaches for supplier evaluation and selection of the rice supply chain as a typical example.This is a useful proposed model on an academic and practical front.The FANP-DEA method not only provides reasonable results but also allows the decision-maker to visualize the impact of different criteria in the final result.Furthermore, this integrated model may offer valuable insights, as well as provide methods for other sectors to select and evaluate suppliers.This model can also be applied to many different industries for future research directions.
For improving these MCDM model, outlier detection and the curse of dimensionality of the DEA model will be considered in future research.Moreover, different methodologies, such as the ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations (PROMETHEE), fuzzy data envelopment analysis (FDEA), etc., can also been combined for different scenarios.
Author Contributions: In this research, C.-N.W. contributed to generating the research ideas and designing the theoretical verifications, and reviewed the manuscript; V.T.N. contributed the research ideas, designed the framework, collected data, analyzed the data, and summarized and wrote the manuscript; D.H.D. collected data, analyzed the data, wrote the manuscript; and H.T.D. wrote and formatted the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Symmetry 2018, 10 , 221 17 of 35 The
data collection of the FANP and hierarchical structure are introduced in Figure4.Supplier Selection Capital and financial power of supplier company (CFB) Proposed raw material price (RPMP) Transportation cost to the geographical location (TCOL) Communication System (CS) Lead Time (LT) After sales service (ASS) Production capacity (PC) Business experience and Position among competitors (PEP)

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Hierarchical structure to select best suppliers.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Hierarchical structure to select best suppliers.

Table 1 .
Criteria for supplier selection.

3 :
Implementation of the DEA model

Table 5 .
Fuzzy comparison matrix for criteria.

Table 5 .
Fuzzy comparison matrix for criteria.

Table 6 .
Real number priority.
with the number of criteria is 4, we obtain n = 4, and λ max and CI are calculated as follows:

Table 7 .
Fuzzy comparison matrices for the criteria.

Table 8 .
Comparison matrix for the financial criteria.

Table 9 .
Comparison matrix for the delivery and service criteria.

Table 10 .
Comparison matrix for the qualitative criteria.

Table 11 .
Comparison matrix for the environmental management systems criteria.

Table 12 .
Raw data provided by case organization used to assess the relative efficiency of various suppliers.

Table 12 .
Raw data provided by case organization used to assess the relative efficiency of various suppliers.

Table 13 .
The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Table A1 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the CCR-I model.

Table A2 .
The slacks for each DMU using the CCR-I model.

Table A3 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the CCR-O model.

Table A4 .
The slacks for each DMU using the CCR-O model.

Table A6 .
The slacks for each DMU using the BCC-I model.

Table A7 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the BBC-O model.

Table A8 .
The slacks for each DMU using the BCC-O model.

Table A9 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the SBM-I-C model.

Table A10 .
The slacks for each DMU using the SBM-I-C model.

Table A11 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the SBM-O-C model.

Table A12 .
The slacks for each DMU using the SBM-O-C model.

Table A14 .
The slacks for each DMU using the Super SBM-I-C model.

Table A15 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the SBM-AR-C model.

Table A16 .
The slacks for each DMU using the SBM-AR-C model.

Table A17 .
The optimal weights for each DMU using the SBM-AR-V model.

Table A18 .
The slacks for each DMU using the SBM-AR-V model.