Skip to main content
Log in

Multiple sourcing decisions using integrated AHP and knapsack model: a case on carton sourcing

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purchase allocation is a multi criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. Multitude of qualitative and quantitative factors is involved in the multiple sourcing decisions. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has widely been used to find out the relative rankings of suppliers. AHP can be combined with regular supplier quantitative audit process. In classical AHP, decision maker (DM) has to pair wise compare suppliers for each factor, whereas the proposed audit based simplified AHP will remove the complexity of comparison. Quarterly audit-based AHP rankings and supplier performance probability products can be used in place of revenues in the backward recursive resource allocation knapsack model. This combined model will decompose purchase allocation problem into different stages and combine one supplier at each stage and provide the optimum and feasible solution in the end. Solution at each stage is also a feasible option. This model is only applicable when the total order quantity and the capacity of all suppliers are integer multiples of economic or minimum order quantity. This integrated model thus provides number of orders/supplier.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burke GJ, Carrillo JE, Vakharia AJ (2007) Production, manufacturing and logistics single versus multiple supplier sourcing strategies. Eur J Oper Res 182:95–112

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Berger PD, Gerstenfeld A, Zeng AZ (2004) How many suppliers are best? A decision-analysis approach. Omega (Int J Management Science) 32:9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Burke GJ, Geunes J, Romeijn HE, Vakharia A (2008) Allocating procurement to capacitated suppliers with concave quantity discounts. Oper Res Lett 36:103–109

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186:211–228

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu JR, Tsai CC (2008) A decision framework for supplier rating and purchase allocation: a case in the semiconductor industry. Comput Ind Eng 55:634–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Taha HA, Operations research: an introduction eighth edition, chapter 10 Deterministic Dynamic Programming (405-408) Pearson Education, Inc (2007)

  10. Burke GJ, Geunes J, Romeijn HE, Vakharia A (2008) Allocating procurement to capacitated suppliers with concave quantity discounts. Oper Res Lett 36:103–109

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Faez F, Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (2009) Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy case-based reasoning and mathematical programming model. Int J Prod Econ 121:395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Talluri S, Narasimhan R (2004) O.R. applications, a methodology for strategic sourcing. Eur J Oper Res 154:236–250

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanayei A, Mousavi SF, Abdi MR, Mohaghar A (2008) An integrated group decision-making process for supplier selection and order allocation using multi-attribute utility theory and linear programming. J Franklin Inst 345:731–747

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Bichler B, Kalagnanam J (2005) Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions. Eur J Oper Res 160:380–394

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Ozpeynirci S, Azizo MG (2009) Bounding approaches for operation assignment and capacity allocation problem in flexible manufacturing systems. Comput Oper Res 36:2531–2540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Michel S, Perrot N, Vanderbeck F (2009) Discrete optimization knapsack problems with setups. Eur J Oper Res 196:909–918

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Sbihi A (2010) Discrete optimization a cooperative local search-based algorithm for the multiple-scenario max–min knapsack problem. Eur J Oper Res 202:339–346

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Hackman ST, Rosenblatt MJ, Olin JM (1990) Allocating items to an automated storage and retrieval system. IIE Trans 22(1):7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gu J, Goetschalckx M, McGinnis L (2007) F, Research on warehouse operation: a comprehensive review. Eur J Oper Res 177:1–21

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Pisinger D (2005) Where are the hard knapsack problems? Comput Oper Res 32:2271–2284

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty TL, Alexander JM (1981) Thinking with models, mathematical models in the physical, biological and social sciences, chapter 8. Pergamon Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, S., Dubey, D. Multiple sourcing decisions using integrated AHP and knapsack model: a case on carton sourcing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51, 1171–1178 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2673-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2673-8

Keywords

Navigation