4.7 Article

Assessing business impacts of agility criterion and order allocation strategy in multi-criteria supplier selection

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 1136-1148

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.041

Keywords

Supplier selection; Agile supply chain; Pareto fronts; Bullwhip effect; Fuzzy AHP; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)

Funding

  1. ICT R&D program of MSIP/IITP [Development of Smart Manufacturing Operation Platform for Hightech Industry] [14-824-10-020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper formulates supplier evaluation and selection as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem with subjective and fuzzy preferences of decision makers over evaluation criteria. As an outcome, this paper provides decision makers with a decision support system that presents the Pareto fronts, a set of best possible high-quality suppliers and optimized business operation levels from such suppliers. In addition, this paper quantifies the importance of the agility criterion and its sub-criteria in the process of evaluating and selecting agile suppliers by measuring the magnitude of bullwhip effect and inventory costs. The proposed system uses a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) to successfully determine the priority weights of multiple criteria and selects the fittest suppliers by taking the vagueness and imprecision of human assessments into consideration. More importantly, it presents approximated Pareto fronts of the resulting supplier chains for varying priority weights of the agility criterion and its sub-criteria. Finally, we compare business costs of agile and non-agile supply chains before and after reconfigurations of original supply chains in response to unexpected disruptions under two order allocation strategies, a skewed order allocation (SOA) strategy and an even order allocation (EOA) strategy. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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