International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 9, Issue 12 (December 2022), Pages: 125-134

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Application of fuzzy AHP for supplier development prioritization

 Author(s): Rahayu Tukimin 1, 2, Wan Hasrulnizzam Wan Mahmood 3, *, Maimunah Mohd Nordin 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Fakulti Kejuruteraan Pembuatan, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia
 2Department of Industrial Automation and Robotics, Kolej Kemahiran Tinggi Mara Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
 3Fakulti Teknologi Kejuruteraan Mekanikal dan Pembuatan, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5588-5112

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.12.016

 Abstract:

Supplier development (SD) has been identified as a critical strategy for manufacturing firms in managing and improving the capabilities of suppliers. However, implementing this program necessitates an investment of time, commitment, and finances. The selection of the most beneficial practices to be implemented in order for this program to succeed can ensure a better program output. Therefore, it is crucial for the manufacturing firm to identify which practices should be prioritized and implemented for their SD program. Although SD has been widely researched, the method to evaluate SD practices, particularly in the Malaysian manufacturing industry is virtually non-existent. This paper aims to fill the gap by proposing a method to evaluate the SD practices using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP). Fuzzy AHP is used to rank the practices involved in the program by capturing the evaluation from experts with strong industrial backgrounds in Malaysian Industry. There are five criteria for SD practices: Supplier certification (SC), green capability (GC), investment and resource transfer (IRT), feedback and evaluation (FE), and knowledge transfer (KT), with 30 alternatives identified. The findings of the Fuzzy AHP method, suggest that KT is given the most weight. Thus, the alternatives associated with KT must be prioritized to achieve the objectives of the SD program. The results obtained can be referred to by manufacturing practitioners as guidelines for seeking the opportunity to implement an SD program in enhancing the capabilities of suppliers.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Supplier development, Fuzzy AHP, Manufacturing firms, Supplier capability, MCDM

 Article History: Received 12 May 2022, Received in revised form 2 September 2022, Accepted 5 September 2022

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Tukimin R, Mahmood WHW, and Nordin MM (2022). Application of fuzzy AHP for supplier development prioritization. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(12): 125-134

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3  

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10

----------------------------------------------    

 References (39)

  1. Abdullah R, Lall MK, and Tatsuo K (2008). Supplier development framework in the Malaysian automotive industry: Proton’s experience. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2(1): 29-58.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Ammarapala V, Chinda T, Pongsayaporn P, Ratanachot W, Punthutaecha K, and Janmonta K (2018). Cross-border shipment route selection utilizing analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 40(1): 31-37.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Arroyo‐López P, Holmen E, and De Boer L (2012). How do supplier development programs affect suppliers? Insights for suppliers, buyers and governments from an empirical study in Mexico. Business Process Management Journal, 18(4): 680-707. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151211253792   [Google Scholar]
  4. Awasthi A and Kannan G (2016). Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 91: 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.11.011   [Google Scholar]
  5. Azadegan A (2011). Benefiting from supplier operational innovativeness: The influence of supplier evaluations and absorptive capacity. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(2): 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2011.03226.x   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bai C and Sarkis J (2010). Green supplier development: Analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12): 1200-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.016   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bai C and Sarkis J (2016). Supplier development investment strategies: A game theoretic evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, 240(2): 583-615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1737-9   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bai C, Dhavale D, and Sarkis J (2016). Complex investment decisions using rough set and fuzzy c-means: An example of investment in green supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(2): 507-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.059   [Google Scholar]
  9. Bai C, Govindan K, Satir A, and Yan H (2019a). A novel fuzzy reference-neighborhood rough set approach for green supplier development practices. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03456-z   [Google Scholar]
  10. Bai C, Kusi-Sarpong S, Badri Ahmadi H, and Sarkis J (2019b). Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: A group decision-support approach. International Journal of Production Research, 57(22): 7046-7067. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042   [Google Scholar]
  11. Cai M and Luo J (2020). Influence of COVID-19 on manufacturing industry and corresponding countermeasures from supply chain perspective. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science), 25(4): 409-416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12204-020-2206-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:32834699 PMCid:PMC7396204
  12. Çankaya SY (2020). The effects of strategic sourcing on supply chain strategies. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 13(2): 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-01-2019-0002   [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang DY (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3): 649-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2   [Google Scholar]
  14. Darnall N, Jolley GJ, and Handfield R (2008). Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: Complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1): 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.557   [Google Scholar]
  15. Dyer JH and Nobeoka K (2000). Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<345::AID-SMJ96>3.0.CO;2-N   [Google Scholar]
  16. Golmohammadi A and Hassini E (2021). Investment strategies in supplier development under capacity and demand uncertainty. Decision Sciences, 52(1): 109-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12419   [Google Scholar]
  17. Hernandez-Vivanco A, Domingues P, Sampaio P, Bernardo M, and Cruz-Cázares C (2019). Do multiple certifications leverage firm performance? A dynamic approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 218: 386-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.016   [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang Y and Wang L (2016). The case study on the supplier certification system of B2C platform enterprise. In the 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), IEEE, Kunming, China: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2016.7538476   [Google Scholar]
  19. Ishizaka A and Labib A (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert systems with Applications, 38(11): 14336-14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143   [Google Scholar]
  20. Khan M, Hussain M, and Saber HM (2016). Information sharing in a sustainable supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 181: 208-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.010   [Google Scholar]
  21. Klassen RD and Vachon S (2003). Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: The impact on plant‐level environmental investment. Production and Operations Management, 12(3): 336-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00207.x   [Google Scholar]
  22. Kumar A, Luthra S, Mangla SK, and Kazançoğlu Y (2020). COVID-19 impact on sustainable production and operations management. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 1: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2020.06.001   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC7443395
  23. Lee DM and Drake PR (2010). A portfolio model for component purchasing strategy and the case study of two South Korean elevator manufacturers. International Journal of Production Research, 48(22): 6651-6682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902897780   [Google Scholar]
  24. Moon JH and Kang CS (2001). Application of fuzzy decision making method to the evaluation of spent fuel storage options. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 39(3-4): 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-1970(01)00019-1   [Google Scholar]
  25. Pourjavad E and Shahin A (2020). Green supplier development programmes selection: A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 13(6): 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1773569   [Google Scholar]
  26. Routroy S and Pradhan SK (2014). Analyzing the performance of supplier development: A case study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2): 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2012-0106   [Google Scholar]
  27. Saaty TL (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590   [Google Scholar]
  28. Safari H, Faghih A, and Fathi MR (2013). Integration of graph theory and matrix approach with fuzzy AHP for equipment selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM), 6(2): 477-494. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.403   [Google Scholar]
  29. Sánchez‐Rodríguez C, Hemsworth D, and Martínez‐Lorente ÁR (2005). The effect of supplier development initiatives on purchasing performance: A structural model. Supply Chain Management: An international journal, 10(4): 289-301. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540510612767   [Google Scholar]
  30. Sarkis J and Dhavale DG (2015). Supplier selection for sustainable operations: A triple-bottom-line approach using a Bayesian framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 166: 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.007   [Google Scholar]
  31. Tan KC, Kannan VR, Hsu CC, and Leong GK (2010). Supply chain information and relational alignments: Mediators of EDI on firm performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 40(5): 377-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031011052831   [Google Scholar]
  32. Teli SN, Gaikwad L, Mundhe P, and Chanewar N (2013). Impact of certification program on supplier selection to reduce quality cost. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(1): 97-102.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Tran TT (2017). An empirical research on selecting the targeted suppliers and purchasing process of supermarket. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(4): 96-109. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.04.015   [Google Scholar]
  34. Wagner SM (2006). Supplier development practices: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6): 554-571. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610657831   [Google Scholar]
  35. Wiratmadja II and Tahir N (2021). Supplier development program through knowledge sharing effectiveness: A mentorship approach. IEEE Access, 9: 13464-13475. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3052193   [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu Z and Pagell M (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6): 577-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.10.001   [Google Scholar]
  37. Yusoff HN, Mohamed A, and Hadi A (2016). Sustainable development: What is the role of audit? Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 11(1): 99-112.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang M, Pawar KS, and Bhardwaj S (2017). Improving supply chain social responsibility through supplier development. Production Planning and Control, 28(6-8): 500-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1309717   [Google Scholar]
  39. Zobel T (2013). ISO 14001 certification in manufacturing firms: A tool for those in need or an indication of greenness? Journal of Cleaner Production, 43: 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.014   [Google Scholar]