A Multi-Criteria Approach to Sustainable Risk Management of Supplier Portfolio: A Case Study at Defense Industry

Year 2022, Volume: 35 Issue: 4, 1504 - 1519, 01.12.2022

Gözde Öztek Mehmet Kabak

https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.883894

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Supply Chain Management plays an important role in the success and performance of businesses. Supply chains have to adapt to changes in technological advancements and customer expectations to maintain competitive advantage. On the other hand, driving factors such as risk reduction, increasing the financial performance of the supply chain, societal influence, governmental requirements and attracting customers who give importance to sustainability have been influential in the increasing interest in the concept of Sustainable Supply Chain. Therefore, businesses maintain their supply chain operations while focusing on economic, environmental and social dimensions. Additionally, the risk evaluation methods employed in supply chain management are considered to be more qualitative rather than quantitative. This study conducted in a Turkish defense industry company introduces a quantitative framework that allows the evaluation of risks and risk management practices required for sustainable supplier performance with the help of a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach. In this study, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Rating Methods are applied together in order to evaluate risks through classification of critical suppliers with respect to business volume, capabilities and schedule certainty. Using this framework, Sustainable Supplier Risk Scores (SSRS) of each class of suppliers have been calculated and specific risk management practices have been determined for each class. The objective is to establish effective supply chain risk management practices, which provide long term partnership with suppliers in a business with strategic customers, high cost of production, high expectations in terms of quality and high level of supply chain risks.

Keywords

Sustainable supply chain, Risk assessment, Multi-criteria decision making, Defense industry

References

• [1] Ayhan, M.B., Kilic, H.S., “A two stage approach for supplier selection problem in multi-item/multi-supplier environment with quantity discounts”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 85: 1-12, (2015).
• [2] Ting, S. C., Cho, D. I., “An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing decisions”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2): 116-127, (2008).
• [3] Kannan, V., Tan, K. C., “The impact of supplier selection and buyer-supplier engagement on relationship and firm performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 36: 755-775, (2006).
• [4] Herbon, A., Moalem, S., Shnaiderman, H., Templeman, J., “Dynamic weights approach for off-line sequencing of supplier selection over a finite planning horizon”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(5): 434–463, (2012).
• [5] Turhan, E., Kartum, G., Ozdemir, Y.,“Sustainable production and business practices”, Bucak Faculty of Business Journal, 1(1):1-15, (2018).
• [6] Monczka, R.M., Handfield, R.B., Giunipero, L.C., Purchasing and Supply Chain Management (sixth ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, (2008).
• [7] Sarı, I.U., Ervural, B.Ç., Bozat, S., “Investigation of supplier evaluation criteria in sustainable supply chain management with DEMATEL method and an application in health sector”, Journal of Pamukkale University Engineering Sciences, 23(4): 477-485, (2017).
• [8] Cengiz, M., Kilic, S., Yalcin, F., “Evaluation of heavy metal risk potential in Bogacayi river water”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(6): 248, (2017).
• [9] Sarkis, J., Talluri, S., “A model for strategic supplier selection”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38: 18-28, (2002).
• [10] Gencer, C., Gurpinar, D., “Analytic Network Process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31: 2475-2486, (2007).
• [11] Ruiz, A. T., Multi-Objective Decision Support System for Sustainable Supplier Management. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania, (2015).
• [12] Korucuk, S., Memiş, S., “Measurement of risk factors in supply chain management with AHP: The case of Erzurum province”, Journal of BEÜ SBE,7(2): 1036-1051, (2018).
• [13] Caniëls, M., Gelderman, C., “Purchasing strategies in the Kraljic Matrix - A power and dependence perspective”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 11: 141-155, (2005).
• [14] Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Kabak, M., Dağdeviren, M., “Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: a hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach”, Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(2): 875-905, (2020).
• [15] Reza, B., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., “Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis”, Construction and Building Materials, 25: 2053-2066, (2011).
• [16] Lange, W.J., Stafford, W.H., Forsyth, G.G., Maitre, D.C., “Incorporating stakeholder preferences in the selection of technologies for using invasive alien plants as a bio-energy feedstock: Applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process”, Journal of Environmental Management, 99: 76-83, (2012).
• [17] Chen, Y., Liu, R., Barrett, D., Gao, L., Zhou, M., Renzullo, L., Emelyanova, I., “A spatial assessment framework for evaluating flood risk under extreme climates”, Science of the Total Environment, 538: 512-523, (2015).
• [18] Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., Çobanoglu, C., “A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38: 2741-2751, (2011).
• [19] Dhar, A., Ruprecht, H., Vacik, H., “Population viability risk management (PVRM) for in Situ management of endangered tree species: A case study on a TaxusBaccata L. population”, Forest Ecology and Management, 255: 2835-2845, (2008).
• [20] Santos, L.F.O.M., Osiro, L., Lima, R.H.P, “A model based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation and analytic hierarchy process for supplier segmentation using qualitative and quantitative criteria”, Expert Systems with Applications, 79: 53-64, (2017).
• [21] Rochikashvili, M., Bongaerts, J.C., “Multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable wall paints and coatings using Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Energy Procedia,96: 923-933, (2016).
• [22] Al Garni, H., Kassem, A., Awasthi, A., Komljenovic, D., Al-Haddad, K., “A multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia”, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 16: 137-150, (2016).
• [23] Yap, H.Y., Nixon, J.D., “A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK”, Waste Management, 46: 265-277, (2015).
• [24] Narayanan, D., Zhang, Y., Mannan, M. S., “Engineering for sustainable development (ESD) in BioDiesel production”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 85: 349-359, (2007).
• [25] Muchfirodin, M., Guritno, A.D., Yuliando, H., “Supply chain risk management on tobacco commodity in Temanggung, Central Java (Case Study at Farmers and Middlemen Level)”, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 3: 235-240, (2015).
• [26] Abdollahi, M., Arvan, M., Razmi, J., “An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile?”, Expert Systems with Applications, 42(1): 679-690, (2015).
• [27] Nixon, J.D., Dey, P.K., Ghosh, S.K., Davies, P.A., “Evaluation of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India using the Hierarchical Analytical Network Process”, Energy, 59: 215-223, (2013).
• [28] Nie, R., Tian, Z., Wang, J, Zhang, H., Wang, T., “Water security sustainability evaluation: Applying a multistage decision support framework in industrial region”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 1681-1704, (2018).
• [29] Ren, J., Liang, H., Chan, F.T.S., “Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for eco-city: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on Best-Worst Method”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116: 29-39, (2017).
• [30] Arabsheybani, A., Paydar, M.M., Safaei, A.S., “An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier's risk”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 190: 577-591, (2018).
• [31] Amirshenava, S., Osanloo, M., “Mine Closure Risk Management: An integration of 3D risk model and MCDM techniques”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 184: 389-401, (2018).
• [32] Segura, M., Maroto, C., “A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods”, Expert Systems with Applications, 69: 87-100, (2017).
• [33] Mavi, R.K., Zarbakhshnia, N., Khazraei, A., “Bus rapid transit (BRT): A simulation and multi criteria decision making (MCDM) approach”, Transport Policy, 72: 187-197, (2018).
• [34] Vafaeipour, M., Zolfani, S.H., Varzandeh, M.H.M., Derakhti, A., Eshkalag, M.K., “Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach”, Energy Conversion and Management, 86: 653-663, (2014).
• [35] Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., “Multi-criteria risk assessment of a construction project”, Procedia Computer Science, 17: 129-133, (2013).
• [36] Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., Mavi, N. K., “Supplier selection with shannon entropy and fuzzy TOPSIS in the context of supply chain risk management”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235: 216 – 225, (2016).
• [37] Hu, Y., Liu, K., Xu, D., Zhai, Z., Liu, H., “Risk assessment of long distance oil and gas pipeline based on grey clustering”, IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK), Hefei, 198-201, (2017).
• [38] Li, Y.L., Ying, C.S., Chin, K. S., Yang, H. T., Xu, J., “Third-party reverse logistics provider selection approach based on hybrid-ınformation MCDM and cumulative prospect theory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 195: 573-584, (2018).
• [39] Bertilsson, Wiklund, K., Tebaldi, I.M., Rezende, O.M., Veról, A.P., Miguez, M.G., “Urban flood resilience – A multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban planning”, Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.06.052, (2018).
• [40] Sahoo, K., Mani, S., Das, L., Bettinger, P., “GIS-based assessment of sustainable crop residues for optimal siting of biogas plants”, Biomass and Bioenergy, 110: 63-74, (2018).
• [41] Zhou, F., Wang, X., Goh, M., Zhou, L., He, Y., “Supplier portfolio of key outsourcing parts selection using a two-stage decision making framework for Chinese domestic auto-maker”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 128: 559-575, (2018).
• [42] Barfod, M.B., Salling, K.B., “Anew composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 72: 1-15, (2015).
• [43] Huang, L., Yin, Y., Du, D., “Testing a participatory integrated assessment (PIA) approach to select climate change adaptation actions to enhance wetland sustainability: The case of Poyang lake region in China”, Advances in Climate Change Research, 6(2): 141-150, (2015).
• [44] Cools, J., Diallo, M., Boelee, E., Liersch, S., Coertjens, D., Vandenberghe, V., Kone, B., “Integrating human health into wetland management for The Inner Niger Delta, Mali”, Environmental Science and Policy, 34: 34-43, (2013).
• [45] Shahriar, A., Sadiq, R., Tesfamariam, S., “Risk analysis for oil and gas pipelines: A sustainability assessment approach using fuzzy based bow-tie analysis”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 25(3): 505-523, (2012).
• [46] Gruninger, M., Kopena, B. J., “Semantic integration through invariants”, AI Magazine, 26: 11-20, (2005).
• [47] Hallikas, J., Karvonen, I., Pulkkinen, U., Virolainen, V.M., Tuominen, M., “Risk management processes in supplier networks”, International Journal of Production Economics, 90, 47-58, (2004).