USAGE OF ANP AND VIKOR METHODS FOR SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION PROBLEM OF A COMPANY

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 025, 61 - 74, 15.08.2011

İmre Ferah Göktürk Avni Yücel Eryılmaz Bahadır Yörür Yıldız Yuluğkural

Öz

Supplier assessment and selection
problem is an important milestone to perform business plan for a company.
Therefore, to solve this important problem in supply chain management brings
competitiveness to the company.  Supplier assessment and selection problem
based on multi criteria decision making problem is tried to solve by numerous
different method and approaches until today. The aim of this study is to order
and evaluate 14 suppliers of a machine manufacturer company by using VIKOR
method. Analytic Network Process (ANP) method was used due to the interactions
among criteria which has an important role to weight evaluation criteria in
VIKOR method. VIKOR solutions are obtained for the different values of the
maximum group utility which has taken into consideration to have a compromise
solution, and results are interpreted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Supplier Evaluation and Selection, Analytic Network Process (ANP), VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) Method

BİR İŞLETMENİN TEDARİKÇİ DEĞERLENDİRME VE SEÇİM PROBLEMİNİN ÇÖZÜMÜNDE AAS VE VIKOR YÖNTEMLERİNİN KULLANILMASI

Öz

Tedarikçi değerlendirme
ve seçim problemi, işletmelerin ileriye dönük planlarının gerçekleştirilmesi
açısından önem taşımaktadır. Tedarik zinciri yönetimindeki bu önemli sorunun
üstesinden gelmek ise işletmelere önemli ölçüde rekabet avantajı sağlamaktadır.
Çok kriterli bir karar verme problemi olan tedarikçi değerlendirme ve seçim
problemi, günümüze kadar çok sayıda değişik yöntem ve yaklaşımların
kullanılmasıyla çözülmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, VIKOR yöntemi
kullanımı ile, makine imalatı gerçekleştiren bir işletmenin 14 tedarikçisi
arasında bir değerlendirme ve sıralama gerçekleştirmektir. VIKOR yönteminin
çözümünde önemli bir rol oynayan değerlendirme kriterlerinin
ağırlıklandırılmasında, kriterlerin karşılıklı etkileşim içermesinden dolayı
Analitik Ağ Süreci (AAS) yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Uzlaşık çözümün elde
edilmesinde dikkate alınan maksimum grup faydasının farklı değerleri için ayrı
ayrı VIKOR çözümleri elde edilmiş ve sonuçlar yorumlanmıştır.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tedarikçi Değerlendirme ve Seçimi, Analitik Ağ Süreci (AAS) Yöntemi, VIKOR Yöntemi

Kaynakça

• [1] S. Önüt, S.S. Kara, and E. Işık, “Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 3887-3895 (2009).
• [2] D. Özgen, S. Önüt, B. Gülsün, U.R. Tuzkaya, and G. Tuzkaya, “A two-phase possibilistic linear programming methodology for multi-objective supplier evaluation and order allocation problems”, Information Sciences, 178, 485-500 (2008).
• [3] S.S. Kara, “Supplier selection with an integrated methodology in unknown environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 2133-2139 (2011).
• [4] C. Gencer and D. Gurpınar, “Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm”, Applied Mathematical Modeling, 31, 2475-2486 (2007).
• [5] L. Boer, E. Labro, and P. Morlacchi, “A review of methods supporting supplier selection”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2), 75-89 (2001).
• [6] K.L. Choy, W.B. Lee, and V. Lo, “Design of a case based intelligent supplier relationship management system-the integration of supplier rating system and product coding system”, Expert Systems with Applications, 25, 87-100 (2003).
• [7] R. Cook, “Case-based reasoning systems in purchasing: Applications and development”, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33(1), 32-39 (1997).
• [8] Z. Degraeve, E. Labro, and F. Roodhooft, “An evaluation of vendor selection models from a total cost of ownership perspective”, European Journal Operation Research, 125, 34-58 (2000).
• [9] S. Talluri and R. Narasimhan, “Vendor evaluation with performance variability: a max–min approach”, European Journal Operation Research, 146, 543-552 (2003).
• [10] J. Zhu, “A buyer–seller game model for selection and negotiation of purchasing bids: extensions and new models”, European Journal Operation Research, 134, 150-156 (2004).
• [11] S.H. Ghodspour and C. O’Brien, “The total cost of logistics in supplier selection under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity constraint”, International Journal Production Economics, 73, 15-27 (2001).
• [12] C. Hinkle, P.J. Robinson, and P.E. Green, “Vendor evaluation using clusters analysis”, Journal of Purchasing, 5(3), 49-58 (1969).
• [13] B. Ronen and D. Trietsch, “A decision support system for purchasing management of large projects”, Operations Research, 36(6), 882-890 (1998).
• [14] V. Albino and A. Garavelli, “A neural network application to subcontractor rating in construction firms”, International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 9-14 (1998).
• [15] K. Choy, W.B. Lee, and L. Victor, “An intelligent supplier management tool for benchmarking suppliers in outsource manufacturing”, Expert System with Applications, 22, 213-224 (2002).
• [16] E. Lee, S. Ha, and S. Kim, “Supplier selection and management system considering relationships in supply chain management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48, 307-318 (2001).
• [17] F. Liu and H. Hai, “The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier”, International Journal of Production Economics, 97(3), 308-317 (2005).
• [18] J. Sarkis and S. Talluri, “A model for strategic supplier selection”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38, 18–28 (2002).
• [19] C-T. Chena, C-T. Lin, and S-F. Huangb, “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, 289-301 (2006).
• [20] G. Aydın Keskin, S. İlhan, and C. Özkan, “The Fuzzy ART algorithm: A categorization method for supplier evaluation and selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 1235-1240 (2010).
• [21] T.M. Lang, J.H. Chiang, and L.W. Lan, “Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral”, Computers & Industrial Engineering 57, 330-340 (2009).
• [22] R.J. Kou, Y.C. Wang, and F.C. Tien, “Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1161-1170 (2010)
• [23] E.A. Demirtas and O. Ustun, “Analytic network process and multi-period goal programming integration in purchasing Decisions”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 677–690 (2009).
• [24] P. Chatterjee, V.M. Athawale, and S. Chakraborty, “Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods”, Materials and Design, 30, 4043-4053 (2009).
• [25] W-H. Tsai, W-C. Chou, and C-W. Lai, “An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: A case study of Taiwan”, Tourism Management, 31, 936-952 (2010).
• [26] J.J.H. Liou and Y-T. Chuang, “Developing a hybrid multi-criteria model for selection of outsourcing providers”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3755-3761 (2010).
• [27] W-R, J. Ho, C-L. Tsai, G-H. Tzeng, and S-K. Fang, “Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 16-25 (2011).
• [28] H-Y. Wu, Y-K. Lin, and C-H. Chang, “Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard”, Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 37-50 (2011).
• [29] İ.Ö. Baykal, “Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Personel Seçimi Problemine Uygulanması”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, No.213589 (2007).
• [30] D. Lixin, L. Ying, and Z. Zhiguang, “Selection of Logistics Service Provider Based on Analytic Network Process and VIKOR Algorithm”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, ICNSC 2008, 6-8 April, Hainan, China, 1207-1210, (2008).
• [31] G.W. Dickson, “An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions”, Journal of Purchasing, 2, 5-17, (1966).
• [32] T.L. Saaty, “The analytic hierarchy process, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, (1980)
• [33] T.L. Saaty, “The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making With Dependence and Feedback.” RWS Publ., Pittsburg (1996).
• [34] E.E. Karsak, S. Sözer, and S.E. Alptekin, “Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44, 171-190 (2002).
• [35] L.M. Meade and A. Presley, “R&D Project Selection Using the Analytic Network Process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 59-66 (2002).
• [36] T.L. Saaty, “Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process”, Proceedings of ISAHP, Kobe, Japan (1999).
• [37] L.M. Meade and J. Sarkis, “Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: An analytic network approach”, International Journal of Production Research, 37(2), 241-261 (1999).
• [38] T.L. Saaty, “Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process”, RWS Publications, Pittsburg (1988).
• [39] İ. Ertuğrul ve N. Karakaşoğlu, “Banka şube performanslarının VIKOR yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 20(1), 19-28 (2008).
• [40] S. Opricovic and G.H. Tzeng, “Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: a Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445-455 (2004).
• [41] P.L. Yu, “A class of solutions for group decision problems”, Management Science, 19(8), 936-946 (1973).
• [42] S. Opricovic and G.H. Tzeng, “Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Other Outranking Methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514-529 (2007).
• [43] G. Büyüközkan and D. Ruan, “Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach”, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 77, 464-475 (2008).
• [44] G-H. Tzeng, C-W. Lin, and S. Opricovic, “Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation”, Energy Policy, 33, 1373-1383 (2005).
• [45] M-T. Chu, J. Shyu, G-W. Tzeng, and R. Khosla, R, “Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis”, Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 1011-1024 (2007).
• [46] A.A Bazzazi, M. Osanloo, and B. Karimi, “Deriving preference order of open pit mines equipment through MADM methods: Application of modified VIKOR method”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 2550-2556 (2011).
• [47] H-Y. Wu, G-H. Tzeng, and Y-H. Chen, “A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 10135-10147 (2009).
• [48] L.Y. Chen, V.M. Athawale, and S. Chakraborty, “Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR”, International Journal Production Economics, 120, 233-242 (2009).
• [49] A. Sanayei, S.F. Mousavi, and A. Yazdankhah, “Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 24-30 (2010).
• [50] C-L. Chang and C-H. Hsu, “Multi-criteria analysis via the VIKOR method for prioritizing land-use restraint strategies in the Tseng-Wen reservoir watershed”, Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3226-3230 (2009).
• [51] J.J.H. Liou, C-Y. Tsai, R-H. Lin, and G-H. Tzeng, G-H, “A modified VIKOR multiple-criteria decision method for improving domestic airlines service quality”, Journal of Air Transport Management, doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2010.03.004 (2010).
• [52] M-S. Kuo and G-S. Liang, “Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 1304-1312 (2011).
• [53] J.R. San Cristóbal, “Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy Project in Spain: The VIKOR method”, Renewable Energy, 36, 498-502 (2011)