Multi-objective simulation optimization for selection and determination of order quantity in supplier selection problem under uncertainty and quality criteria

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Simulation optimization is providing solutions to practical stochastic problems. Supplier selection is one of the most important decisions that determine the survival of an organization. In this paper, a novel multi-objective simulation optimization method to make decisions on selecting the suppliers and determining the order quantities is proposed. Regarding the fact that a real supply chain is multi-objective with uncertain parameters and includes both quantitative and qualitative variables, the proposed method considers these points and is applicable to real-world problems. This method also considers supplier selection and order quantity allocation to each supplier, which are totally related, as an integrated model. The proposed method consists of four basic modules: Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm (COA), Discrete Event Simulation (DES), Supply Chain Model (SCM), and Generalized Data Envelopment Analysis (GDEA). Unlike many multi-objective methods, the proposed method is not limited to the number of objective functions and this is one of its main benefits. It also pays attention to the efficiency of the organization and, at the same time, finding inputs which result in best output amounts. This method, in addition to the convergence criterion, pays special attention to the dispersion of the Pareto frontier as the second criterion for choosing the good solutions. For implementation of the proposed method, the numerical results for the problem of supplier selection in multi-product, multi-customer modes, and uncertain and qualitative variables are discussed and the Pareto frontiers are presented. The proposed method in this paper is compared with a similar method, and the results show the efficiency of the proposed method.

Keywords

Supplier selection problem Simulation optimization Multi-objective problem Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm Generalized Data Envelopment Analysis Efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelaziz AY, Ali ES (2015) Cuckoo Search algorithm based load frequency controller design for nonlinear interconnected power system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 73:632–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akhilesh G, Patidar R, George NV (2015) Nonlinear system identification using a cuckoo search optimized adaptive Hammerstein model. Expert Syst Appl 42(5):2538–2546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andradóttir, S (1998) A review of simulation optimization techniques. In: Medeiros DJ, Watson EF, Carson JS, Manivannan MS (eds) Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference, 151–158Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andradóttir, S (2005) An overview of simulation optimization via random search. In: Henderson SG, Nelson BL, (eds) Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Simulation, 21. Elsevier, 617–631Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    April J, Glover F, Kelly JP, Laguna M (2003) Practical introduction to simulation optimization. In: Chick S, S´anchez PJ, Ferrin D, Morrice DJ (eds) Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulat Conference. Piscataway, New Jersey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 71–78Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arakawa M, Nakayama H, Hagiwara I, Yamakawa H (1998) Multi-objective optimization using adaptive range genetic algorithms with data envelopment analysis. In: A collection of technical papers on Seventh Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (TP98-4970). Reston, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2074–2082Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arntzen BC, Brown GG, Harrison TP, Trafton LL (1995) Global supply chain management at digital equipment corporation. Interface 25(1):69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayhan MB, Kilic HS (2015) A two stage approach for supplier selection problem in multi-item/multi-supplier environment with quantity discounts. Comput Ind Eng 85:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohon JL, Marks DH (1975) A review and evaluation of multiobjective programming techniques. Water Resour Res 11(2):208–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen MA, Moon S (1990) Impact of production scale economics, manufacturing complexity, and transportation costs on supply chain facility networks. J Manuf Oper Manag 3:269–292Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dellino G, Kleijnen JPC, Meloni C (2010) Robust optimization in simulation: Taguchi and response surface methodology. Int J Prod Econ 125(1):52–59CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diewert WE (1980) Capital and the theory of productivity measurement. Am Econ Rev 70(2):260–267Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ding H, Benyoucef LS, Xie X (2005) A simulation optimization methodology for supplier selection problem. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 18(2–3):210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erenguc SS, Simpson NC, Vakharia AJ (1999) Integrated production/distribution planning in supply chains: an invited review. Eur J Oper Res 115:219–236CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman J, Chen T (2015) Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag: An Int J 20(3):327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fu MC (2002) Optimization for simulation: theory vs. practice. J Comput 14(3):192–215MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fu MC, Glover FW, April J (2005) Simulation optimization: a review, new developments, and applications. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference, Piscataway, New Jersey, 83–95Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glover F, Kelly JP, Laguna M (1999) New advances for wedding optimization and simulation. In: Farrington PA, Nembhard HB, Stuffock DT, Evans GW (eds) Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey 255-260Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greasley A (2004) Using DEA and simulation in guiding operating units to improved performance. J Oper Res Soc 56(6):727–731CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gurkan G, Ozge AY, Robinson TM (1994) Sample-path optimization in simulation. In: Tew JD, Manivannan S, Sadowski DA, Seila AF (eds) Proceedings of 1994 Winter Simulation Conference, 247–254Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ho W, Dey PK, Lockström M (2011) Strategic sourcing: a combined QFD and AHP approach in manufacturing. Supply Chain Manag: An Int J 16(6):446–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones DF, Mirrazavi SK, Tamiz M (2002) Multi-objective meta-heuristics: an overview of the current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper Res 137(1):1–9CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones MH, White KP (2004) Stochastic approximation with simulated annealing as an approach to global discrete-event simulation optimization. In: Proceedings Winter Simulation Conference, 500–507Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kahramanli H (2012) A modified Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm for engineering optimization. Int J Future Comput Commun 1(2):199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee LH, Chew EP, Teng S, Chen Y (2008) Multi-objective simulation-based evolutionary algorithm for an aircrafts spare parts allocation problem. Eur J Oper Res 189(2):476–491CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee HL, Billington C (1993) Material management in decentralized supply chain. Oper Res 41:835–847CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liao Z, Rittscher J (2007) Integration of supplier selection, procurement lot sizing and carrier selection under dynamic demand conditions. Int J Prod Econ 107:502–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li X, Yin M (2015) Modified cuckoo search algorithm with self adaptive parameter method. Inf Sci 298:80–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin RC, Sir YS, Pasupathy KS (2013) Multi-objective simulation optimization using data envelopment analysis and genetic algorithm: specific application to determining optimal resource levels in surgical services. Omega 41:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neddermeijer HG, Van Oortmarssen GJ, Piersma N, Dekker R (2000) A framework for response surface methodology for simulation optimization. In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K, Fishwick PA (eds) Proceedings of the 32 Conference on Winter Simulation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineeres, Piscataway, New Jersey,129–136Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nguyena TT, Vo DN (2015) Modified cuckoo search algorithm for short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 65:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajabioun R (2011) Cuckoo Optimization Algorithm. Appl Soft Comput J 11:5508–5518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rezaei J, Davoodi M (2011) Multi-objective models for lot-sizing with supplier selection. Int J Production Econ 130:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson SM (1996) Analysis of sample-path optimization. Math Oper Res 21(3):513–528MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sabri EH, Beamon BM (2000) A multi-objective approach to simultaneous strategic and operational planning in supply chain design. Int J Manag Sci 28:581–598Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schaffer JD (1984) Some experiments in machine learning using vector evaluated genetic algorithms. Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shadkam E, Bijari M (2014) Evaluation the efficiency of cuckoo optimization algorithm. Int J Comput Sci Appl (IJCSA) 4(2):39–47Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shadkam E, Bijari M (2015) The optimization of bank branches efficiency by means of response surface method and data envelopment analysis: a case of Iran. J Asian Finance Econ Business 2(2):13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spall JC (1998) Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 34(3):817–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tekin E, Sabuncuoglu I (2004) Simulation optimization: a comprehensive review on theory and applications. IIE Trans 36(11):1067–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teleb R, Azadivar F (1994) A methodology for solving multi-objective simulation-optimization problems. Eur J Oper Res 72(1):135–145CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vidal C, Goetschalckx M (1997) Strategic production-distribution models: a critical review with emphasis on global supply chain models. Eur J Oper Res 98:1–18CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang X.-J, Zhang C.-Y, Gao L, Li P.-G, (2008) A Survey and future trend of study on multi-objective scheduling. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC ’08), Jinan, China, 382–391Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weber C, Current JR (1993) A multi-objective approach to vendor selection. Eur J Oper Res 68:173–184CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weber C, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50:2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Whittaker G, ConfesorJr R, Griffith SM, Fare R, Grosskopf S, Steiner JJ et al (2009) A hybrid genetic algorithm for multiobjective problems with activity analysis based local search. Eur J Oper Res 193(1):195–203CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilson B, Cappelleri D, Simpson TW, Frecker M (2001) Efficient pareto frontier exploration using surrogate approximations. Optim Eng 2(1):31–50Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yang XS, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via Lévy Flights, In: Proc. World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC 2009), India. IEEE Publications, 210–214Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang XS, Deb S (2013) Multiobjective cuckoo search for design optimization. Comput Oper Res 40(6):1616–1624MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yun YB, Nakayama H, Tanino T, Arakawa M (2001) Generation of efficient frontiers in multi-objective optimization problems by generalized data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(3):586–595MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yun YB, Nakayama H, Arakawa M (2004) Multiple criteria decision making with generalized DEA and an aspiration level method. Eur J Oper Res 158(3):697–706MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yun YB, Nakayama H, Tanino T (2004) A generalized model for data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 157(1):87–105MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations