Criteria Weight Determination for Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: a Case Study of a Frozen Chicken Distribution in the North-central Region of Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research presented the use of the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to prioritize the supplier selection criteria via the determination of their weights. Also, this research helped reduce the complexity of problem solving on the supplier selection in case of a frozen chicken distribution in the north-central region of Thailand. Under a multi-criteria decision making method, the geometric mean technique was used in this research. The researchers interviewed the decision maker in the purchasing department of the distribution of the case study. It was found that there were the following five important criteria on the aspect of the fuzzy criteria: 1. the cost criterion (0.3,0.48,0.74), 2. the quality criterion (0.18,0.29,0.49), 3. The transport criterion (0.07,0.12,0.20), 4. the service criterion (0.04,0.06,0.10), and 5. the risk criterion (0.04,0.06,0.11). The following important decision criteria were listed in descending order from the highest value of the normalized weight to the lowest: 1. the cost criterion (0.47), 2. the quality criterion (0.29), 3. the transport criterion (0.12), 3. the risk criterion (0.061), and 5. the service criterion (0.059).
Article Details
References
Willis, H.T., Huston, R.C. and Pohlkamp, F. 1993. Evaluation measures of just in time supplier performance. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 34 (2),1-5.
Dobler, D.W., Lee, L. and Burt, N. 1990. Purchasing and Materials Management. Text and Cases, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
Zadeh. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Puripat, C. 2014. Thailand river basin flood prediction using fuzzy rules Thailand river basin flood prediction using fuzzy rules.
Chang, D. 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. 95, 649–655.
Buckley, J. J. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., and Diabat, A. 2013. Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multiobjective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355–367.
Alireza, S., and Seyedeh, A. P. 2015. Comparing fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluation of business intelligence vendors. Decision Science Letters, 4(2), 137–164.
Labib, A. W. 2011. A supplier selection model : A comparison of fuzzy logic and the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Research, 49(21), 6287–6299.
Ishizaka, A. 2014. Comparison of Fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and Hybrid Fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis. International Journal of Intregrated Supply Management, 9(1991), 1–22.
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M. R., Ahmad, R., and Abdul Rahim, A. R. 2019. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50(November), 9–24.
Alyanak, G., and Armanerİ, Ö. 2008. An Integrated Supplier Selection and Order. Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 2–19.
Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., and Altay, N. 2019. International Journal of Production Economics Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Intern. Journal of Production Economics, 208(October), 69–82.
Liu, F. F., and Hai, H. L. 2005. The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97, 308–317.
Ghodsypour, S. H., and Brien, C. O. 2001. The total cost of logistics in supplier selection under conditions of multiple sourcing , multiple criteria and capacity constraint. International Journal of Production Economics, 73(424), 15–27.
Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., and Akay, D. 2009. A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363–11368.
Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E., and Omid, M. 2018. Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers and Operations Research, 89, 337–347.
Bai, C., and Sarkis, J. 2010. Green supplier development: Analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1200–1210.
Rashidi, K., & Cullinane, K. 2019. A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 266–281.
Jeya Girubha Sekar Vinodh Vimal. 2017. Application of Interpretative Structural Modelling integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making methods for sustainable supplier selection Jeya. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2).
Amorim, P., Curcio, E., Almada-Lobo, B., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. F. D., and Grossmann, I. E. 2016. Supplier selection in the processed food industry under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(3), 801–814.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., and Ulukan, Z. 2003. Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382–394.
Kilincci, O., and Onal, S. A. 2011. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9656–9664.
Magdalena, R. 2012. Supplier Selection for Food Industry : A Combination of Taguchi Loss Function and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 5(1), 13–22.
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., and Gold, S. 2018. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106–117.