AN ADDITIVE APPROACH WITH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING METHODS ON EVALUATION OF SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 28 - 46, 31.05.2017

Gökhan Akyüz , Salih Aka

https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.277893

Cited By: 10

Öz

In today's competitive environment, the firms have to reduce their supply risks and costs, on the
other hand, they have to optimize business processes, and respond to changing customer demands by
managing their supply chains. Evaluations and monitoring of existing supplier performances are as
important as selection of new suppliers for managerial effectiveness of supply chain. In this study,
supplier performances of an international firm were examined with Multi-Criteria Decision Making
methods such as PSI and TOPSIS. Using two-year data set, 19 suppliers and five criteria determined by
the firm were included in the study. The relative importance weights of criteria needed for TOPSIS were  identified with CRITIC Method. Two different ranking classes identified with PSI and TOPSIS merged
under an additive ranking class. Finally, the supplier performances were compared through this
additive ranking class. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Supplier Performance, PSI, TOPSIS, CRITIC Method, Borda Count Method

ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME TEKNİKLERİYLE TEDARİKÇİ PERFORMANSI DEĞERLENDİRMEDE TOPLAMSAL BİR YAKLAŞIM

Öz

İşletmelerin
günümüz rekabet koşullarında tedarik zincirlerini yöneterek, tedarik riskini
azaltmaları, maliyetlerini düşürmeleri, diğer taraftan iş süreçlerini optimize
etmeli ve değişen müşteri taleplerine hızlı cevap verebilmelidirler. Tedarik
zincirinin yönetimsel etkinliği için yeni tedarikçilerin seçimi kadar mevcut
tedarikçilerin performansının değerlendirilmesi ve takibi de önemlidir. Bu
çalışmada, yurtiçi ve yurtdışı tedarikçilerle çalışan bir firmanın tedarikçi
performansları PSI, TOPSIS ve VIKOR gibi üç farklı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
Yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Yaklaşık iki yıllık veri seti kullanılarak firma
tarafından hesaplanan beş gösterge ve 19 tedarikçi çalışma kapsamına
alınmıştır.  TOPSIS ve VIKOR için gerekli olan kriterlerin göreceli önem
ağırlıkları CRITIC Yöntem ile tespit edilmiştir. PSI, TOPSIS ve VIKOR
yöntemleri ile elde edilen üç farklı sıralama sınıfı, Borda Sayım Yöntemiyle
tek bir toplamsal sınıf altında birleştirilmiştir. Son olarak bu toplamsal
sıralama sınıfı yoluyla tedarikçilerin performansı karşılaştırılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tedarikçi Performansı, PSI, TOPSIS, VIKOR, CRITIC Yöntem, Borda Sayım

Kaynakça

• Akarte, M.M., Surendra, N.V., Ravi B. ve Rangaraj N. (2001) “Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52: 511-522.
• Akyüz, G. ve Aktan, H. (2013) “Bütünleştirilmiş Bulanık AHP Ve Bulanık TODIM Yöntemleri ile Tedarikçi Seçimi”, 13. Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Sakarya, Türkiye.
• Akyüz, G. ve Aka, S. (2015) “İmalat Performansı Ölçümü İçin Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım: Tercih İndeksi (PSI) Yöntemi”, Business and Economics Research Journal, 6(1): 63-77.
• Araz, C. ve Ozkarahan, I. (2007) “Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure”, International Journal of Production Economics, 106: 585-606.
• Attri, R. ve Grover, S. (2015) “Application of preference selection index method for decision making over the design stage of production system life cycle”, Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, 27: 207-216
• Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J. ve Young, P. (2010) “Supplier selection paradigm: An integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment”, Applied Soft Computing, 10(4): 1013-1027.
• Büyüközkan, G. ve Ersoy, M.Ş. (2009) “Applying fuzzy decision making approach to IT outsourcing supplier selection”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 55: 411-415.
• Chang, C.H., Lin, J.J., Lin J.H. ve Chiang, M.C. (2010) “Domestic open-end equity mutual fund performance evaluation using extended TOPSIS method with different distance approaches”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 4642-4649.
• Chen, T.C., Lin, C.T. ve Huang S.F. (2006) “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, 102: 289-301.
• Chen, L.Y. ve Wang, T.C. (2009) “Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR”, International Journal of Production Economics, 120(1): 233-242.
• Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B. ve Lo, V. (2002) “An intelligent supplier management tool for benchmarking suppliers in outsource manufacturing”, Expert Systems with Applications, 22(3): 213-234.
• Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. ve Willis, R.J. (2000) “Inter-company comparison using modifed TOPSIS with objective weights”, Computers & Operations Research, 27: 963-973.
• Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., ve Papayannakis L. (1995) “Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method”, Computers and Operation Research, 22(7): 763-770.
• Ecer, F. ve Küçük, O. (2008) “Tedarikçi seçiminde analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi ve bir uygulama”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(1): 355-369.
• Güneri, A.F., Yücel, A. ve Ayyıldız, G. (2009) “An integrated fuzzy-lp approach for a supplier selection problem in supply chain management”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5): 9223-9228.
• Hajkowicz, S.A. ve Wheeler, S.A. (2008) “Evaluation of Dairy Effluent Management Options Using Multiple Criteria Analysis”, Environmental Management, 41: 613-624.
• Ho, T.K., Hull, J.J. ve Srihari, S.N. (1992) “On Multiple Classifier Systems for Pattern Recognition”, IEEE Int. Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), The Hague, Netherlands.
• Hsu, L.C., Ou, S.L. ve Ou, Y.C. (2015) “A Comprehensive performance evaluation and ranking methodology under a sustainable development perspective”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(1): 74-92.
• Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Sapuan, S.M., Ismail, M.Y. ve Bahraminasab, M. (2012) “A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 58: 411-420.
• Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H. ve Izadikhah, M. (2009) “An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175: 1375-1384.
• Joseph, O.A. ve Sridharan, R. (2011) “Ranking of scheduling rule combinations in a flexible manufacturing system using preference selection index method”, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 3(2): 201-216.
• Karpak, B., Kumcu, E. ve Kasuganti, R.R. (2001) “Purchasing materials in the supply chain: managing a multi-objective task”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(3): 209–216.
• Kasirian M. N. ve Yusuff, R. M. (2013) “An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria”, International Journal of Production Research, 51(4): 1037-1054.
• Keskin, G.A., İlhan, S. ve Özkan, C. (2010) “The Fuzzy ART algorithm: A categorization method for supplier evaluation and selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 1235-1240.
• Kim, Y. ve Chung, E.S. (2013) “Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches”, Climatic Change, 121: 301-315.
• Kumar, M., Vrat, P. ve Shankar, R. (2004) “A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a supply chain”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 46(1): 69-85.
• Kuo, R.J., Wang, Y.C. ve Tien, F.C. (2010) “Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12): 1161-1170.
• Lansdowne Z.F. ve Woodward B.S. (1996) “Applying the Borda Ranking Method”, Air Force Journal of Logistics, 20(2): 27-29.
• Lee, A.H.I. (2009) “A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36: 2879-2893.
• Lin, J.J., Chiang, M.C. ve Chang C.H. (2007) “A comparison of usual indices and extended TOPSIS methods in mutual funds’ performance evaluation”, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 10(6): 869-883.
• Lin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M.S. ve Chang, C.A. (2008) “Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process”, Computers in Industry, 59: 17-31.
• Liu, J., Ding, F.Y. ve Lall, V. (2000) “Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(3): 143-150.
• Luo, X., Wu, C., Rosenberg, D. ve Barnes, D. (2009) “Supplier selection in agile supply chains:An information-processing model and an illustration”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 15(4): 249–262.
• Maniya, K. ve Bhatt, M.G. (2010) “A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method”, Materials and Design, 31: 1785-1789.
• Maniya, K.D. ve Bhatt, M.G. (2011) “An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61: 542-549.
• Min, H. (1994) “International supplier selection: A multi-attribute utility approach”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(5): 24-33.
• Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G.H. (2004) “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, 156: 445–455.
• Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G.H. (2007) “Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, 178: 514-529.
• Öz, E. ve Baykoç, Ö.F. (2004) “Tedarikçi seçimi problemine karar teorisi destekli uzman sistem yaklaşımı”, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3): 275-286.
• Özel, B. ve Özyörük, B. (2007) “Bulanık aksiyomatik tasarım ile tedarikçi firma seçimi”, Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3): 415-423.
• Peng, Y., Wang, G., Kou, G. ve Shi, Y. (2011) “An empirical study of classification algorithm evaluation for financial risk prediction”, Applied Soft Computing, 11: 2906-2915.
• Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S.F. ve Yazdankhah, A. (2010) “Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1): 24-30.
• Shaen, R.F. (2006) “A decision model for selecting technology suppliers in the presence of nondiscretionary factors”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 181(2): 1609-1615.
• Shyur, H.J. ve Shih, H.S. (2006) “A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44: 749-761.
• Tahriri, F., Osman, M.R., Ali, A., Yusuff, R.M. ve Esfandiary A. (2008) “AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 01(02): 54-76.
• Tam, M.C.Y. ve Tummala, V.M.R. (2001) “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system”, Omega, 29(2): 171-182.
• Vahdani, B., Zandieh, M. ve Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2011) “Two novel FMCDM methods for alternative-fuel buses selection”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35: 1396-1412.
• Wu, W.W. (2011) “Beyond Travel & Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda count”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38: 12974-12982.
• Yang, J.L., Chiu, H.N., Tzeng, G.H. ve Yeh, R.H. (2008) “Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships”, Information Sciences, 178: 4166-4183.
• Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C. ve Çobanoğlu, C. (2011) “A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38: 2741-2751.