4.7 Article

A four-phase AHP-QFD approach for supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
Volume 50, Issue 19, Pages 5474-5490

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.639396

Keywords

supply management; quality function deployment; analytical hierarchy process; sustainability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, companies have become increasingly aware of the need to evaluate suppliers from a sustainability perspective. Introducing the triple bottom line (economic, social, and environmental performance) into supplier assessment and selection decisions embeds a new set of trade-offs, complicating the decision-making process. Although many tools have been developed to help purchasing managers make more effective decisions, decision support tools, and methodologies which integrate sustainability (triple bottom line) into supplier assessment and selection are still sparse in the literature. Moreover, most approaches have not taken into consideration the impact of business objectives and requirements of company stakeholders on the supplier evaluation criteria. To help advance this area of research and further integrate sustainability into the supplier selection modelling area, we develop an integrated analytical approach, combining Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Quality Function Deployment (QFD), to enable the 'voice' of company stakeholders in the process. Drawing on the sustainable purchasing strategy development process, our AHP-QFD approach comprises four hierarchical phases: linking customer requirements with the company's sustainability strategy, determining the sustainable purchasing competitive priority, developing sustainable supplier assessment criteria, and lastly assessing the suppliers. An illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available