Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

SUPPLIER SELECTION WITH AHP-TOPSIS METHOD FOR A COMPANY IN THE THERMOTECHNICAL SECTOR

Year 2023, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 37 - 51, 28.04.2023

Ural Gökay Çiçekli Aslıhan Nazlı

Abstract

Through the developing possibilities and advancing technology, companies have focused their eyes on the Supply Chain (SC) instead of focusing on the time in production to increase their profitability rates, and visible competition has started among the companies in this field. The supply process, the beginning part of SC, offers an effective improvement area. The most critical player in this process is the suppliers.
Finding the right supplier who can provide the right quality, time, and amount of products or services to the company constitutes the primary purpose of supplier selection, which can make SC more efficient and effective. On the other hand, supplier selection is a complex problem as it is typically a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem involving various conflicting criteria where the decision maker’s knowledge is often unclear and uncertain.
This variable has been weighted with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the MCDM methods, by determining the evaluation criterion of a company’s supplier operating in the thermotechnical sector, and the final supplier selection of these dimensions has been decided by using TOPSIS. The primary purpose of the study; For the company, it is to rate the choice of a particular material source supplier and reduce the commercial and strategic decisions for the purchaser’s material group.

Keywords

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Supplier Selection Analytical Hierarchy Process TOPSIS

References

  • Abdollahi, M., Arvan, M. ve Razmi, J. (2015). An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile?. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(1), 679-690.
  • Awasthi, A., Govindan, K. ve Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117.
  • Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M. ve Ignatius, J. (2012). A State-of the-art Survey of TOPSIS Applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051-13069.
  • Bhutta, K.S. ve Huq, F. (2002). Supplier Selection Problem: A Comparison of the Total Cost of Ownership and Analytic Hierarchy Process Approaches. Supply Chain Management: an international journal.
  • Chai, J. ve Ngai, E. W. (2020). Decision-making Techniques in Supplier Selection: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903, 1-16.
  • Chiou, C.Y., Hsu, C.W. ve Hwang, W.Y. (2008). Comparative Investigation on Green Supplier Selection of the American, Japanese and Taiwanese Electronics Industry in China. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (1909-1914). IEEE.
  • Chou, S. Y. ve Chang, Y. H. (2008). A decision support system for supplier selection based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert systems with applications, 34(4), 2241-2253.
  • Çiçekli, U.G. ve Karaçizmeli, A. (2013). Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci İle Başarılı Öğrenci Seçimi: Ege Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Örneği. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 71-95.
  • De Boer, L., van der Wegen, L. ve Telgen, J. (1998). Outranking Methods in Support of Supplier Selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 4(2-3), 109-118.
  • De Boer, L., Labro, E. ve Morlacchi, P. (2001). A Review of Methods Supporting Supplier Selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2), 75-89.
  • Dong, Q., Zhü, K., & Cooper, O. (2017). Gaining consensus in a moderated group: A model with a twofold feedback mechanism. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 87-97.
  • Dubey, S., Singh, R., Singh, S. P., Mishra, A. ve Singh, N. V. (2020). A brief study of value chain and supply chain. Agriculture Development and Economic Transformation in Global Scenario, 177-183.
  • Ertuğrul, İ. ve Karakaşoğlu, N. (2008). Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, 783-795.
  • Feyzioğlu, O. ve Büyüközkan, G. (2010). Evaluation of green suppliers considering decision criteria dependencies. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Auckland, New Zealand, 7th-12th January 2008 (145-154). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Frödell, M. (2011). Criteria for Achieving Efficient Contractor‐Supplier Relations. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 18: 381-393.
  • Govindan, K., Kadziński, M. ve Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145.
  • Hague, R. K., Barker, K. ve Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2015). Interval-valued availability framework for supplier selection based on component importance. International Journal of Production Research, 53(20), 6083-6096.
  • Ho, W. (2008). Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications–A Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228.
  • Ho, W., Xu, X. ve Dey, P.K. (2010). Multi-criteria Decision Making Approaches for Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24.
  • Humphreys, P., McCloskey, A., McIvor, R., Maguire, L., & Glackin, C. (2006). Employing Dynamic Fuzzy Membership Functions to Assess Environmental Performance in the Supplier Selection Process. International Journal of Production Research, 44(12), 2379-2419.
  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: A State of the Art Survey. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186(1).
  • Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., Nagar, V. ve Rajan, M. V. (1999). Supplier Selection, Monitoring Practices, and Firm Performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(3), 253-281.
  • Kaymaz, Y. ve Çiçekli, G. (2023). Service Provider Selection For Project Logistics Operations With Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 1-17.
  • Klueber, R. ve O’Keefe, R. M. (2013). Defining and Assessing Requisite Supply Chain Visibility in Regulated İndustries. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26(3): 295-315.
  • Koçak, A. (2003). Yazılım Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi Yaklaşımı Ve Bir Uygulama. Ege Academic Review, 3(1), 67-77.
  • La Londe, B.J. ve Masters, J.M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies: Blueprints for The Next Century. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(7): 35-47.
  • Lehmann, D.R. ve O'shaughnessy, J. (1982). Decision Criteria Used in Buying Different Categories of Products. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 18(1), 9-14.
  • Liu, J., Ding, F.Y. ve Lall, V. (2000). Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Compare Suppliers for Supplier Selection and Performance Improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(3): 143-150.
  • Lu, L. Y., Wu, C. H. ve Kuo, T. C. (2007). Environmental Principles Applicable to Green Supplier Evaluation by Using Multi-objective Decision Analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 4317-4331.
  • Misra, V., Khan, M. I. ve Singh, U. K. (2010). Supply chain management systems: architecture, design and vision. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 6(4), 96-101.
  • Noci, G. (1997). Designing ‘Green’ Vendor Rating Systems for the Assessment of a Supplier's Environmental Performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(2), 103-114.
  • Nydick, R.L. ve Hill, R.P. (1992). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Structure the Supplier Selection Procedure. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 28(2), 31-36.
  • Onder, E. ve Sundus, D. (2013). Combining analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches for supplier selection in a cable company. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 2(2), 56-74.
  • Özkan, B., Başlıgil, H. ve Şahin, N. (2011). Supplier selection using analytic hierarchy process: an application from Turkey. In Proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2011 Vol. 2, 6-8 Haziran 2011.
  • Pal, O., Gupta, A. K., & Garg, R. K. (2013). Supplier Selection Criteria and Methods in Supply Chains: A Review. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 7(10), 2667-2673.
  • Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
  • Saaty, T. L. ve Niemira, M. P. (2006). A Framework for Making a Better Decision. Research Review, 13(1), 1-4.
  • Sevkli, M. (2010). An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Research, 48(12), 3393-3405.
  • Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M. ve Kumanan, S. (2008). Multi‐criteria Decision‐making Approach to Evaluate Optimum Maintenance Strategy in Textile Industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(4), 375-386.
  • Soba, M. ve Eren, K. (2011). Topsis Yöntemini Kullanarak Finansal ve Finansal Olmayan Oranlara Göre Performans Değerlendirilmesi, Şehirlerarası Otobüs Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11 (21) , 23-40.
  • Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(06), 1821-1843.
  • Verma, R. ve Pullman, M. E. (1998). An Analysis of the Supplier Selection Process. Omega, 26(6), 739-750.
  • Wu, C. ve Barnes, D. (2011). A Literature Review of Decision-making Models and Approaches for Partner Selection in Agile Supply Chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(4), 256-274.
  • Zhang, X. ve Xu, Z. (2015). Hesitant fuzzy QUALIFLEX approach with a signed distance-based comparison method for multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert systems with applications, 42(2), 873-884.

AHP VE TOPSIS ENTEGRASYONU İLE TERMOTEKNİK SEKTÖRÜNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN BİR FİRMADA TEDARİKÇİ SEÇİMİ

Year 2023, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 37 - 51, 28.04.2023

Ural Gökay Çiçekli Aslıhan Nazlı

Abstract

Gelişen olanak ve ilerleyen teknoloji sayesinde, firmalar karlılık oranlarını arttırmak amacıyla üretimdeki zamanlara odaklanmak yerine gözlerini Tedarik Zinciri (TZ) üzerine dikmişlerdir ve firmalar arasında bu alanda gözle görülür bir rekabet başlamıştır. TZ’nin başlangıç kısmı olan tedarik süreci etkin bir iyileştirme alanı sunmaktadır. Bu sürecin en önemli oyuncusu ise tedarikçilerdir.
Firmaya doğru kalitede, doğru zamanda ve doğru miktarda ürün veya hizmet sunabilecek doğru tedarikçiyi bulma süreci TZ’yi daha verimli ve daha etkin duruma getirebilecek olan tedarikçi seçiminin temel amacını oluşturmaktadır. Öte yandan, tedarikçi seçimi tipik olarak karar vericinin bilgisinin genellikle belirsiz ve kesin olmadığı çeşitli çelişkili kriterleri içeren çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) problemi olması nedeniyle zor bir problemdir.
Yapılan bu çalışmada termoteknik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bir firmanın tedarikçi değerlendirme kriterleri belirlenerek, ÇKKV yöntemlerinden Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ile ağırlıklandırılmış ve bu kriterler doğrultusunda tedarikçi seçimine TOPSIS kullanılarak karar verilmiştir. Çalışmanın ana amacı; firmanın için, belirli bir materyal grubunda tedarikçi seçimini derecelendirmek ve satın alma sorumlusunun materyal grubu için alacağı ticari ve stratejik kararları kolaylaştırmaktır.

Keywords

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Metotları Tedarikçi Seçimi Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi TOPSIS

References

  • Abdollahi, M., Arvan, M. ve Razmi, J. (2015). An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile?. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(1), 679-690.
  • Awasthi, A., Govindan, K. ve Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117.
  • Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M. ve Ignatius, J. (2012). A State-of the-art Survey of TOPSIS Applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051-13069.
  • Bhutta, K.S. ve Huq, F. (2002). Supplier Selection Problem: A Comparison of the Total Cost of Ownership and Analytic Hierarchy Process Approaches. Supply Chain Management: an international journal.
  • Chai, J. ve Ngai, E. W. (2020). Decision-making Techniques in Supplier Selection: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903, 1-16.
  • Chiou, C.Y., Hsu, C.W. ve Hwang, W.Y. (2008). Comparative Investigation on Green Supplier Selection of the American, Japanese and Taiwanese Electronics Industry in China. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (1909-1914). IEEE.
  • Chou, S. Y. ve Chang, Y. H. (2008). A decision support system for supplier selection based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert systems with applications, 34(4), 2241-2253.
  • Çiçekli, U.G. ve Karaçizmeli, A. (2013). Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci İle Başarılı Öğrenci Seçimi: Ege Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Örneği. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 71-95.
  • De Boer, L., van der Wegen, L. ve Telgen, J. (1998). Outranking Methods in Support of Supplier Selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 4(2-3), 109-118.
  • De Boer, L., Labro, E. ve Morlacchi, P. (2001). A Review of Methods Supporting Supplier Selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2), 75-89.
  • Dong, Q., Zhü, K., & Cooper, O. (2017). Gaining consensus in a moderated group: A model with a twofold feedback mechanism. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 87-97.
  • Dubey, S., Singh, R., Singh, S. P., Mishra, A. ve Singh, N. V. (2020). A brief study of value chain and supply chain. Agriculture Development and Economic Transformation in Global Scenario, 177-183.
  • Ertuğrul, İ. ve Karakaşoğlu, N. (2008). Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, 783-795.
  • Feyzioğlu, O. ve Büyüközkan, G. (2010). Evaluation of green suppliers considering decision criteria dependencies. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Auckland, New Zealand, 7th-12th January 2008 (145-154). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Frödell, M. (2011). Criteria for Achieving Efficient Contractor‐Supplier Relations. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 18: 381-393.
  • Govindan, K., Kadziński, M. ve Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145.
  • Hague, R. K., Barker, K. ve Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2015). Interval-valued availability framework for supplier selection based on component importance. International Journal of Production Research, 53(20), 6083-6096.
  • Ho, W. (2008). Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications–A Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228.
  • Ho, W., Xu, X. ve Dey, P.K. (2010). Multi-criteria Decision Making Approaches for Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24.
  • Humphreys, P., McCloskey, A., McIvor, R., Maguire, L., & Glackin, C. (2006). Employing Dynamic Fuzzy Membership Functions to Assess Environmental Performance in the Supplier Selection Process. International Journal of Production Research, 44(12), 2379-2419.
  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: A State of the Art Survey. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186(1).
  • Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., Nagar, V. ve Rajan, M. V. (1999). Supplier Selection, Monitoring Practices, and Firm Performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(3), 253-281.
  • Kaymaz, Y. ve Çiçekli, G. (2023). Service Provider Selection For Project Logistics Operations With Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 1-17.
  • Klueber, R. ve O’Keefe, R. M. (2013). Defining and Assessing Requisite Supply Chain Visibility in Regulated İndustries. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26(3): 295-315.
  • Koçak, A. (2003). Yazılım Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi Yaklaşımı Ve Bir Uygulama. Ege Academic Review, 3(1), 67-77.
  • La Londe, B.J. ve Masters, J.M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies: Blueprints for The Next Century. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(7): 35-47.
  • Lehmann, D.R. ve O'shaughnessy, J. (1982). Decision Criteria Used in Buying Different Categories of Products. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 18(1), 9-14.
  • Liu, J., Ding, F.Y. ve Lall, V. (2000). Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Compare Suppliers for Supplier Selection and Performance Improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(3): 143-150.
  • Lu, L. Y., Wu, C. H. ve Kuo, T. C. (2007). Environmental Principles Applicable to Green Supplier Evaluation by Using Multi-objective Decision Analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 4317-4331.
  • Misra, V., Khan, M. I. ve Singh, U. K. (2010). Supply chain management systems: architecture, design and vision. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 6(4), 96-101.
  • Noci, G. (1997). Designing ‘Green’ Vendor Rating Systems for the Assessment of a Supplier's Environmental Performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(2), 103-114.
  • Nydick, R.L. ve Hill, R.P. (1992). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Structure the Supplier Selection Procedure. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 28(2), 31-36.
  • Onder, E. ve Sundus, D. (2013). Combining analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches for supplier selection in a cable company. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 2(2), 56-74.
  • Özkan, B., Başlıgil, H. ve Şahin, N. (2011). Supplier selection using analytic hierarchy process: an application from Turkey. In Proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2011 Vol. 2, 6-8 Haziran 2011.
  • Pal, O., Gupta, A. K., & Garg, R. K. (2013). Supplier Selection Criteria and Methods in Supply Chains: A Review. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 7(10), 2667-2673.
  • Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
  • Saaty, T. L. ve Niemira, M. P. (2006). A Framework for Making a Better Decision. Research Review, 13(1), 1-4.
  • Sevkli, M. (2010). An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Research, 48(12), 3393-3405.
  • Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M. ve Kumanan, S. (2008). Multi‐criteria Decision‐making Approach to Evaluate Optimum Maintenance Strategy in Textile Industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(4), 375-386.
  • Soba, M. ve Eren, K. (2011). Topsis Yöntemini Kullanarak Finansal ve Finansal Olmayan Oranlara Göre Performans Değerlendirilmesi, Şehirlerarası Otobüs Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11 (21) , 23-40.
  • Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(06), 1821-1843.
  • Verma, R. ve Pullman, M. E. (1998). An Analysis of the Supplier Selection Process. Omega, 26(6), 739-750.
  • Wu, C. ve Barnes, D. (2011). A Literature Review of Decision-making Models and Approaches for Partner Selection in Agile Supply Chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(4), 256-274.
  • Zhang, X. ve Xu, Z. (2015). Hesitant fuzzy QUALIFLEX approach with a signed distance-based comparison method for multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert systems with applications, 42(2), 873-884.
There are 44 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Operation, Business Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ural Gökay Çiçekli 0000-0002-6032-9540

Aslıhan Nazlı 0009-0000-6194-4265

Publication Date April 28, 2023
Acceptance Date April 17, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 4 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Çiçekli, U. G., & Nazlı, A. (2023). AHP VE TOPSIS ENTEGRASYONU İLE TERMOTEKNİK SEKTÖRÜNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN BİR FİRMADA TEDARİKÇİ SEÇİMİ. Malatya Turgut Özal Üniversitesi İşletme Ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 37-51.
 Download Cover Image