4.7 Article

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

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 1136-1148

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据