Advertisement

Comparative Study of Different MCDA-Based Approaches in Sustainable Supplier Selection Problem

  • Artur Karczmarczyk
  • Jarosław WątróbskiEmail author
  • Jarosław Jankowski
Conference paper
  • 236 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 346)

Abstract

One of the crucial aspects of maintaining the business continuity of a company is the process of sustainable supplier selection. If the suppliers are chosen improperly, a slow-down or even a complete suspension of the operations within a company can occur. In this paper, a new unique approach is presented in which the classical MCDA paradigm is extended with aspects of temporal evaluation. In practical terms, three popular MCDA methods are used to evaluate suppliers based on data obtained from five temporal aggregation strategies. The combination of three MCDA methods (namely AHP, TOPSIS and COMET) allows to obtain a rank-reversal-free solution with a reference model and well defined hierarchical structure of the problem. Moreover, the rankings obtained from the MCDA methods are then aggregated to provide the Decision Maker a single ranking of suppliers. The effect of each temporal aggregation strategy on the eventual selection of the winning supplier is also studied.

Keywords

MCDA Temporal aggregation AHP TOPSIS COMET PROMETHEE Sustainable supplier selection 

References

  1. 1.
    Akman, G.: Evaluating suppliers to include green supplier development programs via fuzzy c-means and VIKOR methods. Comput. Ind. Eng. 86, 69–82 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835214003441
  2. 2.
    Alencar, L., Almeida, A.: Supplier selection based on the PROMETHEE VI multicriteria method. In: Takahashi, R.H.C., Deb, K., Wanner, E.F., Greco, S. (eds.) EMO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6576, pp. 608–618. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19893-9_42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayhan, M.B.: A fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in a Gear motor company. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2886 (2013)
  4. 4.
    Banamar, I., De Smet, Y.: An extension of PROMETHEE II to temporal evaluations CoDE-SMG-Technical report Series (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCDM.2018.094371
  5. 5.
    Boran, F.E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., Akay, D.: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(8), 11363–11368 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S.: Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 233(2), 299–312 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., Nebol, E.: Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113(1), 148–158 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.01.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter, C.R., Liane Easton, P.: Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41(1), 46–62 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan, F.T., Kumar, N.: Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35(4), 417–431 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F.: A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102(2), 289–301 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chmielarz, W., Zborowski, M.: Scoring method versus TOPSIS method in the evaluation of E-banking services. In: 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 683–689. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Boer, L., van der Wegen, L., Telgen, J.: Outranking methods in support of supplier selection. Eur. J. Purchasing Supply Manag. 4(2–3), 109–118 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-7012(97)00034-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dulmin, R., Mininno, V.: Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision aid method. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 9(4), 177–187 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1478-4092(03)00032-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G.: The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag. Sci. 60(11), 2835–2857 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farm, B.: Broadwater Farm - Summer Fruit Picking - The Job and Pay. https://www.broadwaterfarm.biz/summer-fruit-picking-uk/
  16. 16.
    Gold, S., Seuring, S., Beske, P.: Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17(4), 230–245 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golicic, S.L., Smith, C.D.: A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain management practices and firm performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49(2), 78–95 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A.: A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345–354 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P.: Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 66–83 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grant, T.: 10 Ways to Drive E-Commerce Sales During Slow Online Shopping Months. https://www.infusionsoft.com/business-success-blog/sales/e-commerce/10-ways-to-drive-e-commerce-sales-during-slow-months
  21. 21.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109(2), 501–521 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221798000733
  22. 22.
    Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y.: A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Comput. Oper. Res. 20(8), 889–899 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030505489390109V
  23. 23.
    Junior, F.R.L., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R.: A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 194–209 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karczmarczyk, A., Jankowski, J., Wątróbski, J.: Multi-criteria decision support for planning and evaluation of performance of viral marketing campaigns in social networks. PLOS ONE 13(12), 1–32 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karczmarczyk, A., Wątróbski, J., Ladorucki, G., Jankowski, J.: MCDA-based approach to sustainable supplier selection. In: 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 769–778. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., Verbeke, A.: PROMETHEE and AHP: the design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis: strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153(2), 307–317 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722170300153X
  27. 27.
    Meade, L., Sarkis, J.: Strategic analysis of logistics and supply chain management systems using the analytical network process. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 34(3), 201–215 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(98)00012-X. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136655459800012X
  28. 28.
    Önüt, S., Kara, S.S., Işik, E.: Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(2), 3887–3895 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palanisamy, P., Abdul Zubar, H.: Hybrid MCDM approach for vendor ranking. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 24(6), 905–928 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-02-2012-0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piwowarski, M., Miłaszewicz, D., Łatuszyńska, M., Borawski, M., Nermend, K.: Application of the vector measure construction method and technique for order preference by similarity ideal solution for the analysis of the dynamics of changes in the poverty levels in the European union countries. Sustainability 10(8), 2858 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., Tavasszy, L.: A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 577–588 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.125. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616308022
  32. 32.
    Roy, B., Vanderpooten, D.: The European school of MCDA: emergence, basic features and current works. J. Multi-criteria Decis. Anal. 5(1), 22–38 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199603)5:1<22::AID-MCDA93>3.0.CO;2-F
  33. 33.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSci.2008.01759MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sahin, O., Mohamed, S.: A spatial temporal decision framework for adaptation to sea level rise. Environ. Model. Softw. 46, 129–141 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.004. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364815213000558
  35. 35.
    Sałabun, W.: The characteristic objects method: a new distance-based approach to multicriteria decision-making problems. J. Multi-criteria Decis. Anal. 22(1–2), 37–50 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Senvar, O., Tuzkaya, G., Kahraman, C.: Multi criteria supplier selection using fuzzy PROMETHEE method. In: Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B. (eds.) Supply Chain Management Under Fuzziness. SFSC, vol. 313, pp. 21–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53939-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seuring, S., Müller, M.: From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16(15), 1699–1710 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sevkli, M., Zaim, S., Turkyilmaz, A., Satir, M.: An application of fuzzy TOPSIS method for supplier selection. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.2010.5584006
  39. 39.
    Shyur, H.J., Shih, H.S.: A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Math. Comput. Model. 44(7–8), 749–761 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.04.018CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tseng, M.L., Chiang, J.H., Lan, L.W.: Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57(1), 330–340 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uppala, A.K., Ranka, R., Thakkar, J.J., Kumar, M.V., Agrawal, S.: Selection of green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy MCDM approach in an electronics company. In: Handbook of Research on Fuzzy and Rough Set Theory in Organizational Decision Making, pp. 355–375 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1008-6.ch016. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/selection-of-green-suppliers-based-on-gscm-practices/169495
  42. 42.
    Wang, C.H.: Using quality function deployment to conduct vendor assessment and supplier recommendation for business-intelligence systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 84, 24–31 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835214003362
  43. 43.
    Wang, J.W., Cheng, C.H., Huang, K.C.: Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 9(1), 377–386 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2008.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M.: Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wątróbski, J., Ziemba, E., Karczmarczyk, A., Jankowski, J.: An index to measure the sustainable information society: the Polish households case. Sustainability 10(9), 3223 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W.: Green supplier selection framework based on multi-criteria decision-analysis approach. In: Setchi, R., Howlett, R.J., Liu, Y., Theobald, P. (eds.) Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016. SIST, vol. 52, pp. 361–371. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., Ladorucki, G.: The temporal supplier evaluation model based on multicriteria decision analysis methods. In: Nguyen, N.T., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L.M., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ACIIDS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10191, pp. 432–442. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54472-4_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yang, J.L., Chiu, H.N., Tzeng, G.H., Yeh, R.H.: Vendor selection by integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques with independent and interdependent relationships. Inf. Sci. 178(21), 4166–4183 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.06.003CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhu, J., Hipel, K.W.: Multiple stages grey target decision making method with incomplete weight based on multi-granularity linguistic label. Inf. Sci. 212, 15–32 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.05.011. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020025512003556
  50. 50.
    Ziemba, E.: The ICT adoption in government units in the context of the sustainable information society. In: 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 725–733. IEEE (2018).  https://doi.org/10.15439/2018F116

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyWest Pomeranian University of Technology in SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and ManagementUniversity of SzczecinSzczecinPoland

Personalised recommendations