BİR İŞLETMEDE TEDARİKÇİ DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ İÇİN YENİ BİR MODEL TASARIMI VE UYGULAMASI

Öz

Günümüzde doğru tedarikçilerle çalışmanın, işletmelerin hedeflerine ulaşmasındaki rolü gittikçe önem kazanmaktadır. Geçmişte alışılagelmiş yöntemlerle tedarikçi değerlendiren birçok işletme, bugün yeni değerlendirme yöntemleri arayışı içindedir. Bu çalışmada, bir işletme için yeni bir tedarikçi değerlendirme modeli geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen modelde Analitik Ağ Prosesi (AAP) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. AAP karar verme sürecini etkileyen faktörler arasındaki her türlü bağımlılık ve geri beslemeyi dikkate alan çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemlerinden biridir. Önerilen tedarikçi değerlendirme modeli tedarikçi temsilcileri ile birlikte değerlendirilmiş ve belirli periyotlarla kullanılmasına karar verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tedarikçi değerlendirme, çok kriterli analiz, analitik ağ prosesi.

DEVELOPING A NEW MODEL FOR SUPPLIER EVALUATION PROCESS FOR A COMPANY AND ITS APPLICATION

Öz

Today, the role of working with the right suppliers in achieving the goals of the companies is getting more important. Many companies, which used to evaluate their suppliers with traditional methods, are now seeking for new evaluation methods. In this study, a new supplier evaluation method is developed for a company. The Analytical Network Process (ANP) method is used in the proposed model. ANP is a multi criteria decision making method that takes into account the dependence and feedback among the factors affecting the decision
making process. The proposed supplier evaluation model is verified with the supplier representatives and it is determined to use this model periodically. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Supplier evaluation,Multi-criteria analysis,Analytical network process

Kaynakça

1. Turban, A.J., Decision Support Systems and
2. Intelligence Systems, Prentice Hall, New York,
3. A.B.D., 1998.
4. Çetinyokuş, T., Tedarikçi Performansının
5. Değerlendirilmesi İçin Bir Karar Destek
6. Sistemi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi,
7. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2003.
8. Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V.,

9. “Measurement of business performance in
10. syrategy research: a comparison of approaches”,
11. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-
12. , 1986.
13. Germain, R., Droge, C., “Wholesale operations
14. and vendor evaluation”, Journal of Business
15. Research, 21(2), 119-129, 1990.
16. Mentzer, J.T., Konrad, B.P., “An
17. efficiency/effectiveness approach to logistics
18. performance analysis”, Journal of Business
19. Logistics, 12(1), 33-62, 1991.
20. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, C., “Vendor
21. selection criteria and methods”, European
22. Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18,
23. -
24. Limmerick, D., Cunnington, B., Managing the
25. New Organization-A Blue Print for Network
26. and Strategic Alliances, Business and
27. Professional Publishing, Sydney, 1993.
28. Chao, C., Scheuing, E.E., Ruch, W.A.,
29. “Purchasing performance evaluation: an
30. investigation of different perspectives”,
31. International Journal of Purchasing and
32. Materials Management, 29(3), 33-39, 1993.
33. Mummalaneni, V., Dubas, K.M., Chao, C.,
34. “Chinese purchasing managers preferences and
35. trade-offs in supplier selection and performance
36. evaluation”, Industrial Marketing
37. Management, 25(1), 115-124, 1996.
38. Krause, D.R., “Supplier development: current
39. practices and outcomes”, International Journal
40. of Purchasing and Materials Management,
41. (2), 12-19, 1997.
42. Roodhooft, F., Konings, J., “Vendor selection
43. and evaluation an activity based costing
44. approach”, European Journal of Operational
45. Research, 96(2), 97-102, 1997.
46. Humphreys, P., Mcvor, R., Chan, F., “Using
47. case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier
48. environmental management performance”,
49. Expert Systems with Application, 25(2), 141-
50. , 2003.
51. Schmitz, J., Platts, K.W., “Supplier logistics
52. performance measurement: Indications from a
53. study in the automotive industry”, International
54. Journal of Production Economics, 89(2), 231-
55. , 2004.
56. Hartley, J.L., Choi, T.Y., “Supplier development:
57. customers as a catalyst of process change”,
58. Business Horizons, 39(4), 37-44, 1996.
59. Porter, A.M., “Supplier evaluation revisited”,
60. Purchasing, 111(6), 58-68, 1991.
61. Purdy, L., Astad, U., Safayeni, F., “Perceived
62. effectiveness of the automotive supplier
63. evaluation process”, International Journal of
64. Operations and Production Management,
65. (6), 91-103, 1994.
66. Forker L.B., Ruch, W.A., Hershauer, J.C.,
67. “Examining supplier improvement efforts from
68. both sides”, The Journal of Supply Chain
69. Management, 35(3), 40-50, 1999.
70. Park, S., Hartley, J.L., Wilson, D., “Quality
71. management practices and their relationship to
72. buyer’s supplier ratings: a study in the Korean
73. automotive industry”, Journal of Operations
74. Management, 19(1), 695-712, 2001.
75. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
76. McGraw-Hill, New York, A.B.D., 1980.
77. Saaty, T.L., Decision Making with Dependence
78. and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process,
79. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, A.B.D., 1996.
80. Karsak, E.E., Sozer, S., Alptekin, S.E.,
81. ”Production planning in quality function
82. deployment using a combined analytical network
83. process and goal programming approach”,
84. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(1),
85. -190, 2002.
86. Chung, S.H., Lee, A.H.L., Pearn, W.L., “Analytic
87. network process (ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator”,
88. International Journal of Production
89. Economics, In press, 2004.
90. Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., “Analyzing
91. organizational project alternatives for agile
92. manufacturing processes: an analytical network
93. approach”, International Journal of Production
94. Research, 37(2), 241-261, 1999.
95. Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., “Strategic analysis of
96. logistics and supply chain management systems
97. using the analytical network process”,
98. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
99. and Transportation Review, 34(3), 201-215,
100. -
101. Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., “An integrated approach
102. for independent information system project
103. selection”, International Journal of Project
104. Management, 19(2), 111-118 2001.
105. Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., “Using analytic network
106. process and goal programming for interdependent
107. information system project selection”,
108. Computers & Operations Research, 27(4),
109. -382, 2001.
110. Partovi, F.Y., Corredoira, R.A., “Quality function
111. deployment for the good of soccer”, European
112. Journal of Operational Research, 137(3), 642-
113. , 2002.
114. Meade, L.M., Presley, A., “R&D project
115. selection using the analytic network process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
116. Management, 49(1), 59-66, 2002.
117. Bayazıt, O., “A new methodology in multiple
118. criteria decision-making systems: analytical
119. network process and an application”, Ankara
120. Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,
121. (1), 15-34 2002.
122. Sarkis, J., “A model for strategic supplier
123. selection”, Journal of Supply Chain
124. Management, 38(1), 18-28, 2002.
125. Mikhailov, L., Singh, M.S., “Fuzzy analytic
126. network process and its application to the
127. development of decision support systems”, IEEE
128. Transactions on Systems, Man, and
129. Cybernetics-Part C: Applications and
130. Reviews, 33(1), 33-41, 2003.
131. Yurdakul, M., “Measuring long-term
132. performance of a manufacturing firm using the
133. analytical network process (ANP) approach”,
134. International Journal of Production Research,
135. (11), 2501-2529, 2003.
136. Momoh, J.A., Zhu, J., “Optimal generationscheduling
137. based on AHP/ANP”, IEEE
138. Transactions on Systems, Man, and
139. Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics, 33(3), 531-
140. , 2003.
141. Niemira, M.P., Saaty, T.L., “An analytical
142. network process model for financial-crisis
143. forecasting”, International Journal of
144. Forecasting, Article in Press, 2004.