Skip to main content
Log in

Realistic ranking of exclusive supplier strategies based on the evaluation of real value of the risks in the supply chain

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risks play an important role in supply chain vulnerability, performance maintenance, and competitive advantage. Through adopting strategies by the exclusive supplier, the potential risks in the supply chain become actual. The risk interdependencies are not involved in the effectiveness of selecting the appropriate strategy. Since a risk may be influenced by another risk in a desirable or undesirable way, estimation of the real risk value is necessary. In this paper, first, the real weight of the actual risks for each strategy is specified through a new approach. Then, considering risk interdependency effects, the amount of increase or decrease in a risk value is determined by proposing an improved DEMATEL method. The real value of each risk is a combination of factors such as real weight, actual value, and sensitivity to other risk effects. Finally, the value of objective functions for each strategy is determined and all strategies will be re-ranked by the proposed approach (three-dimensional integrated mean method). However, the proposed method is used for ranking of Exclusive Supplier Strategies or decision in this paper, but it can be used for many decision-making procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Decision Making Trial and Evaluation.

  2. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution.

  3. Elimination et Choice Translating Reality.

  4. Linear programming for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference.

References

  • Abarghoei NS, Hosaini-Nasab H, Fakhrzad MB (2012) Design of the evaluation model for total ergonomics interventions with fuzzy approach. Sci J Pure Appl Sci 1(3):119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogataj D, Aver B, Bogataj M (2016) Supply chain risk at simultaneous robust perturbations. Int J Prod Econ 181:68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boran FE, Genc S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11363–11368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büyüközkan G, Göcer F (2017) Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Appl Soft Comput 52:1222–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen K, Xiao T (2015) Outsourcing strategy and production disruption of supply chain with demand and capacity allocation uncertainties. Int J Prod Econ 170:243–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comes T, Hiete M, Wijngaards N, Schultmann F (2011) Decision maps: a framework for multi-criteria decision support under severe uncertainty. Decis Supp Syst 52(1):108–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong Q, Cooper O (2016) An orders of magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework. Int J Prod Econ 182:144–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimy Zade A, Fakhrzad MB (2013) A dynamic genetic algorithm for solving a single machine scheduling problem with periodic maintenance. ISRN Indu Eng 21:211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Felfel H, Ayadi O, Masmoudi F (2016) Multi-objective stochastic multi-site supply chain planning under demand uncertainty considering downside risk. Comput Ind Eng 102:268–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL observer. DEMATEL 1976 report. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Gabus A, Fontela E (1973) Perceptions of the world problematique: communication procedure. Communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. DEMATEL report no 1. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Ge H, Nolan J, Gray R, Goetz S, Han Y (2016) Supply chain complexity and risk mitigation—a hybrid optimization–simulation model. Int J Prod Econ 179:228–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakis M, Papadopoulos T (2016) Supply chain sustainability: a risk management approach. Int J Prod Econ 171:455–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindan K, Fattahi M (2017) Investigating risk and robustness measures for supply chain network design under demand uncertainty—a case study of glass supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 183:680–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman H, Busse C, Bode C, Henke M (2014) Sustainability-related supply chain risks: conceptualization and management. Bus Strategy Environ 23(3):160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashi K (2015) The 9th International days of statistics and economics, Prague. September 10–12

  • Kırılmaz O, Erol S (2017) A proactive approach to supply chain risk management shifting orders among suppliers to mitigate the supply side risks. J Purch Supply Manage 23:54–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klibi W, Martel A (2012) Scenario-based supply chain network risk modeling. Eur J Oper Res 223:644–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangla SK, Kumar P, Barua MK (2015) Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach—a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:375–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz M, Hiete M, Comes T, Schultmann F (2013) A composite indicator model to assess natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level. J Risk Res 16(9):1077–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Sharma RRK, Kumar S, Dubey R (2016) Bridging and buffering -Strategies for mitigating supply risk and improving supply chain performance. Int J Prod Econ 180:183–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mufazzal S, Muzakkir SM (2018) A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals. Comput Ind Eng 119:427–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner E, Malys N, Maliene V (2016) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59:146–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooraie SV, Mellat Parast M (2015) A multi-objective approach to supply chain risk management- Integrating visibility with supply and demand risk. Int J Prod Econ 161:192–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qazi A, Quigley J, Dickson A, Ekici SO (2017) Exploring dependency based probabilistic supply chain risk measures for prioritising interdependent risks and strategies. Eur J Oper Res 259:189–204

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt AJ, Singh M (2012) A quantitative analysis of disruption risk in a multiechelon supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 139(1):22–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senthil S, Murugananthan K, Ramesh A (2018) Analysis and prioritization of risks in a reverse logistics network using hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. J Clea Prod 179:716–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin MD, Medal H, Lapp SA (2016) Proactive cost-effective identification and mitigation of supply delay risks in a low volume high value supply chain using fault-tree analysis. Int J Prod Econ 175:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoushtary MA, Hoseini Nasab H, Fakhrzad MB (2014) Team robot motion planning in dynamics environments using a new hybrid algorithm (honey bee mating optimization-tabu list). Chin J Eng 121:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh VG, Rathi S, Patwa S (2015) Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. J Retail Consum Serv 26:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilkoa J, Ritala P, Hallikasa J (2016) Risk management abilities in multimodal maritime supply chains-visibility and control perspectives. Accid Anal Prev 123:469–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner SM, Neshat N (2010) Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory. Int J Prod Econ 126:121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao T, Xu T (2014) Pricing and product line strategy in a supply chain with risk-averse players. Int J Prod Econ 156:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yajing T, Xiaoyu J, Sen Y (2019) New models of supply chain network design by different decision criteria under hybrid uncertainties. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10:2843–2853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You-Shyang C, Huan-Ming C, Arun Kumar S, Chien-Ku L, Wen-Bin H (2019) A study for project risk management using an advanced MCDM-based DEMATEL-ANP approach. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 10:2669–2681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M, Goh M (2014) A multi-objective approach to supply chain visibility and risk. Eur J Oper Res 233(1):125–130

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yuzhen H, Yong D (2018) A hybrid intelligent model for assessment of critical success factors in high-risk emergency system. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput 9:1933–1953

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. B. Fakhrzad.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Calculation of the weight of risks for first priority strategy in the exclusive supplier

figure a
  1. 1.

    Comparative matrices for 10 expert opinions about the level of risks with the exclusive supplier:

figure b
figure c

The opinions of 10 experts are integrated into the geometric mean, as 5.52 is calculated for instance in this way:

$$(6 \times \ldots \times 7)^{{\frac{1}{10}}} = 5.52$$

In the following, the relative weight of the risks with the exclusive supplier in the integration matrix is specified by normalization method:

figure d
  1. 2.

    Risk weights at the level of risks with manufacturers:

figure e
  1. 3.

    Risk weights at the level of risks with distributor:

figure f
  1. 4.

    Weight at the level of supply chain members with capacity:

figure g
  1. 5.

    Weight at the level of supply chain members with price:

figure h
  1. 6.

    Multiplication of the matrices of relative weights and determination of the final weight of risks:

figure i

As a sample:

$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Final Weight of SR}}2 = \hfill \\ \left[ {\left[ {\left( { 0.62 \times 0.71} \right) + \left( { 0.63 \times 0.19 } \right)} \right.} \right. \hfill \\ \left. { + \left( { 0.68 \times 0.10} \right)} \right] \times 0.7 \hfill \\ \left[ {\left( { 0.62 \times 0.67} \right) + \left( { 0.63 \times 0.23 } \right)} \right.\left. {} \right] \hfill \\ \left. { + \left( { 0.68 \times 0.10 } \right)} \right] \times 0.3 = 0.627 \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$

Appendix B: Calculating the sensitivity to risk effects for first priority strategy of the exclusive supplier:

  1. 1.

    Comparative matrices of 10 expert opinions on the risk interdependencies with the improved DEMATEL method:

    figure j
    figure k
    $$\alpha = {\text{Min }}\left[ {\frac{ 1}{1} , \frac{ 1}{0. 8 6}} \right]{ = 1 }$$
  2. 2.

    Matrix N, matrix I–N, matrix \(\left( {{\text{I}} - {\text{N}}} \right)^{ - 1}\) and matrix of total relationships (S):

    \({\text{N}} = \alpha \times {\text{M}}\) and \(S = N \times \left( {I - N} \right)^{ - 1}\)

    figure l
    figure m
    figure n
    figure o

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fakhrzad, M.B., Firoozpour, M.R., Hosseininasab, H. et al. Realistic ranking of exclusive supplier strategies based on the evaluation of real value of the risks in the supply chain. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 11, 4695–4712 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01725-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01725-5

Keywords

Navigation