SUPPLIER SELECTION BASED ON BALANCED SCORECARD-AHP-MARCOS METHODS

Abstract

The main purpose in supply chain management is to make a profit while meeting customer expectations. The problem of supplier selection in supply chain management is one of the decisions that play an important role in the creation of new business opportunities by reducing costs, providing competitive advantage and increasing the success of the business. Supplier selection problem is a decision-making problem that involves evaluating more than one supplier according to more than one criteria. Supplier selection problems with multi-criteria decision-making solution methods is common in research areas. The aim of this study is to develop a systematic approach to the supplier selection process in terms of working with suppliers that are in line with the business strategic goals. An integrated solution approach has been proposed to the supplier performance evaluation and supplier selection problem, including the Balanced Score Card, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) methods. In the proposed approach, supplier selection criteria is discussed in four main dimensions within the framework of the Balanced Score Card method. The importance levels, weights of the main and sub-supplier evaluation criteria are determined by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The suppliers are ranked using Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) method. In order to show the applicability of the proposed approach, supplier selection problem of the production enterprise is presented. As a result of the application of the proposed approach, the suppliers are ranked.

Keywords

• Multi Criteria Decision Making
• Supplier Selection
• Balanced Score Card
• AHP
• MARCOS

DENGELİ PUAN KART-AHP-MARCOS YÖNTEMLERİNE DAYALI TEDARİKÇİ SEÇİMİ

Abstract

Tedarik zinciri yönetiminde amaç, müşteri beklentilerini karşılarken kâr edebilmektir. Tedarik zinciri yönetiminde yer alan tedarikçi seçimi problemi maliyet azaltması, rekabet avantajı sağlaması ve işletmenin başarısının artmasıyla yeni iş imkanlarının oluşmasında önemli rol oynayan kararlardandır. Tedarikçi seçimi problemi, birden fazla tedarikçinin birden fazla kritere göre değerlendirilmesini içeren bir karar verme problemidir. Tedarikçi seçim problemlerinin çok kriterli karar verme çözüm yöntemleriyle ele alınması yaygın olan araştırma alanlarındadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, işletme stratejik hedeflerine uygun tedarikçilerle çalışması konusunda tedarikçi seçim sürecine sistematik bir yaklaşım geliştirmektir. Tedarikçi performans değerlendirmesi ve tedarikçi seçim problemine Dengeli Puan Kart, Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve Uzlaşma Çözümüne Göre Alternatiflerin Ölçülmesi ve Sıralaması (MARCOS) yöntemlerinin olduğu bütünleşik bir çözüm yaklaşımı önerilmiştir. Önerilen yaklaşımda, Dengeli Puan Kart yöntemi mantığı çerçevesinde tedarikçi seçim kriterleri dört ana boyutta ele alınmıştır. Ana ve alt tedarikçi değerlendirme kriterlerinin önem seviyeleri yani ağırlıkları Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yöntemiyle belirlenmiştir. Uzlaşma Çözümüne Göre Alternatiflerin Ölçülmesi ve Sıralaması (MARCOS) yöntemiyle tedarikçiler sıralanmıştır. Önerilen yaklaşımın uygulanabilirliğini göstermek için üretim işletmesinin tedarikçi seçim problemi uygulaması sunulmuştur. Önerilen yaklaşımın işletme uygulaması sonucunda işletmenin tedarikçileri sıralanmıştır.

Keywords

• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• AHP
• Tedarikçi Seçimi
• Dengeli Puan Kart
• MARCOS

References

1. Acuña-Carvajal, F., Pinto-Tarazona, L., López-Ospina, H., Barros-Castro, R., Quezada, L., & Palacio, K. (2019). An integrated method to plan, structure and validate a business strategy using fuzzy DEMATEL and the balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 122, 351-368.
2. Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., & Altay, N. (2019). Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 69-82.
3. Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., & Giacchetta, G. (2006). A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(1), 14-27.
4. Bhagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers & industrial engineering, 53(1), 43-62.
5. Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P. K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M. K., & Nudurupati, S. S. (2014). Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach. Production Planning & Control, 25(8), 698-714.
6. Cebeci, C. (2012). Lojistikte Dengeli Skor Kartının Uygulanabilirliği: Teorik Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (40), 21-41.
7. Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert systems with applications, 40(10), 3872-3885.
8. Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903.

9. Chan, F. T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C., & Choy, K. (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of production research, 46(14), 3825-3857.
10. Cooper, D. J., Ezzamel, M., & Qu, S. Q. (2017). Popularizing a management accounting idea: The case of the balanced scorecard. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 991-1025.
11. Çebi, F., & Bayraktar, D. (2003). An integrated approach for supplier selection. Logistics information management.
12. Chen, C. T., Lin, C. T., & Huang, S. F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International journal of production economics, 102(2), 289-301.
13. Dincer, H., Yüksel, S., & Martinez, L. (2019). Balanced scorecard-based Analysis about European Energy Investment Policies: A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach with Quality Function Deployment. Expert Systems with Applications, 115, 152-171.
14. Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283.
15. Erdoğan, N.K., Onay, A., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2019) Measuring the Performance of Retailer Firms Listed in BIST under the Balanced Scorecard Perspective by Using Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy AHP Based Pythagorean Fuzzy TODIM Methodology. Alphanumeric Journal, 7(2), 333-350.
16. Galankashi, M. R., Helmi, S. A., & Hashemzahi, P. (2016). Supplier selection in automobile industry: A mixed balanced scorecard–fuzzy AHP approach. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(1), 93-100.
17. Gencer, C., & Gürpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Applied mathematical modelling, 31(11), 2475-2486.
18. Gibbons, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (2015). Formal measures in informal management: can a balanced scorecard change a culture?. American Economic Review, 105(5), 447-51.
19. Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: impact on organizational performance. Journal of management accounting research, 12(1), 1-17.
20. Hudnurkar, M., Rathod, U., Jakhar, S. K., & Vaidya, O. S. (2018). Development of a balanced scorecard-based supplier collaborative performance index. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
21. Jain, V., Sangaiah, A. K., Sakhuja, S., Thoduka, N., & Aggarwal, R. (2018). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: a case study in the Indian automotive industry. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(7), 555-564.
22. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard business review, 83(7), 172.
23. Karsavuran, S. (2013). Stratejik Değerlendirme ve Kontrol: Dengeli Puan Kartı'nın Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Kullanımı. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 16(2), 69-89.
24. Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6), 2517-2527.
25. Kim, K., Jeong, B., & Jung, H. (2014). Supply chain surplus: comparing conventional and sustainable supply chains. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 26(1-2), 5-23.
26. Köse, T. (2007). Stratejik Bir Yapı Çerçevesinde Dengeli Ölçüm Kartı Tekniği (Balanced Scorecard) ve Bir Uygulama. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1).
27. Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The accounting review, 75(3), 283-298.
28. Liu, T., Deng, Y., & Chan, F. (2018). Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(4), 1321-1333.
29. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698.
30. Malagueño, R., Lopez-Valeiras, E., & Gomez-Conde, J. (2018). Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 221-244.
31. Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., Nooriparto, G., & Rasekh, H. R. (2017). TQM and organizational performance using the balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
32. Naeini, A. B., Mosayebi, A., & Mohajerani, N. (2019). A hybrid model of competitive advantage based on Bourdieu capital theory and competitive intelligence using fuzzy Delphi and ism-gray Dematel (study of Iranian food industry). International Review, (1-2), 21-35.
33. Özkan, B. (2011). Performans yönetim yöntemi olarak dengeli hedef kartı (balanced scorecard) ve bir işletmede uygulanması (Doctoral dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
34. Saaty, T. L. (2008), “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), s. 83-98.
35. Singh, S., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N., & Mahat, A. B. (2018). Fuzzy-based sustainability evaluation method for manufacturing SMEs using balanced scorecard framework. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 29(1), 1-18.
36. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
37. Valmohammadi, C., & Sofiyabadi, J. (2015). Modeling cause and effect relationships of strategy map using fuzzy DEMATEL and fourth generation of balanced scorecard. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
38. Yaşar, R. Ş. (2016). Dengeli Puan Kartıyla Performans Ölçümü: Bir Denetim Şirketi Uygulaması. Journal of Accounting & Finance, (70).
39. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zolfani, S. H. (2017). Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3728-3740.
40. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.