Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting critical suppliers for supplier development to improve supply management

  • Application Article
  • Published:
OPSEARCH Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a supply chain, the upper echelons plays a key role in tuning the chain performance. In the procurement cycle of the supply chain, the manufacturer outsources more parts and services to focus on their own core competencies. A situation may arise in which some suppliers may under perform in providing critical strategic supplies. This paper analyzes supplier performance using multi-criteria decision procedure along with Pareto analysis in identifying sub-optimal suppliers to be included in the supplier development to optimize the supply chain performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akarte, M., Surendra, N., Ravi, B., Rangaraj, N.: Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 52(5), 511–522 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andijani, A., Anwarul, M.: Manufacturing blocking discipline: A multi-criterion approach for buffer allocations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 51(3), 155–163 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bensaou, M.: Portfolios of buyer supplier relationships. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40(4), 35–44 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. de Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P.: A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 41(7), 75–89 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P.: A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 7, 75–89 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burnes, B., Whittle, P.: Supplier d.r.development: getting started. Logist. Focus 3(1), 10–14 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chan, F.: Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41(15), 3549–3579 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan, F., Jiang, B., Tang, N.: Development of intelligent decision support tools to aid the design of flexible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 65(1), 73–84 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chin, K., Yeung, I., Pun, K.: Development of an assessment system for supplier quality management. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 23(7), 743–765 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi, T., Hartley, J.: An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain. J. Oper. Manag. 14, 333–343 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellram, L.: The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 26(4), 8–14 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Esposito, E., Passaro, R.: The evolution of supply chain relationships: an interpretative framework based on the Italian inter-industry experience. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 41(15), 114–126 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Geldermann, J., Treitz, M., Rentz, O.: Towards sustainable production networks. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45(19), 4207–4224 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Handfield, R., Krause, D., Scannell, T., Monczka, R.: Avoid the pitfalls in supplier development. Sloan Manag. Rev. 41(2), 37–49 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harker, P.: The art and science of decision making: The analytic hierarchy process. Springer (1989)

  16. Hou, J., Su, D.: Ejb-mvc oriented supplier selection system for mass customization. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 18(1), 54–71 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S., Bidanda, B.: A multi-objective model for project portfolio selection to implement lean and six sigma concepts. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46(23), 6611–6625 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jiang, K., Wicks, E.: Integrated investment justification approach for cellular manufacturing systems using activity-based costing and the analytic hierarchy process. J. Eng. Valuat. Cost Anal. 2(4), 271–284 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ulukan, Z.: Multi criteria supplier selection using fuzzy ahp. Logist. Inf. Manag. 16(6), 382–394 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kamann, D., Bakker, E.: Changing supplier selection and relationship practices: a contagion process. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 10, 55–64 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kraljic, P.: Purchasing must become supply management. Harv. Bus. Rev. 61(5), 109–117 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lai, V., Trueblood, R.P., Wong, B.: Software selection: a case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Inf. Manag. 36(4), 221–232 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lamming, R.: Beyond Partnership: Strategies For Innovation and Lean Supply. Prentice Hall (1993)

  24. Lehner, P., Zirk, D.: Cognitive factors in user/expert system interaction. Hum. Factors 29(1), 97–109 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Levary, R.: Using the analytic hierarchy process to rank foreign suppliers based on supply risks. Comput. Ind. Eng. 55, 535–542 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin, Z.C., Yang, C.B.: Evaluation of machine selection by the ahp method. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 57(3), 253–258 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mansouri, S.A., Moattar Husseini, S.M., Newman, S.: A review of the modern approaches to multi-criteria cell design. Int. J. Prod. Res. 38(5), 1201–1218 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Muralidharan, C., Anantharaman, N., Deshmukh, S.: A multi-criteria group decision-making model for supplier rating. J. Supply Chain Manag. 38(4), 22–33 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Murry, J.W., Hammons, J.O.: Delphi: a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Rev. High. Educ. 18(4), 423–436 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  30. ONeal, C.: Concurrent engineering with early supplier involvement: a cross functional challenge. J. Supply Chain Manag. 29(2), 2–9 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Quinn, J., Anderson, P., Finkelstein, S.: Leveraging intellect. Acad. Manag. Exec. 10(3), 7–27 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill International (1980)

  33. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with The Analytical Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications (1994)

  34. Saen, R.: Suppliers selection in the presence of both cardinal and ordinal data. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 183(2), 741–747 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sarkis, J., Talluri, S.: Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and communication systems for a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 159, 318–329 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schniederjans, M., Garvin, T.: Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 100(1), 72–80 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Syson, R.: Improve Purchase Performance. Pitman Publishing (1992)

  38. Tam, M., Tummala, V.: Evaluation of machine selection by the ahp method:an application of the ahp in vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Omega 29, 171–182 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tummala, V., Chin, K., Ho, S.: Assessing success factors for implementing ce: a case study in Hong Kong electronics industry by ahp. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 49(1), 265–283 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Verma, R., Pullman, M.E.: An analysis of the supplier selection process. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 26(6), 739–750 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Watts, C., Hahn, C.: Supplier development programs: an empirical analysis. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 29, 11–17 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wu, C.R., Chang, C.W., Lin, H.L.: A fuzzy anp-based approach to evaluate medical organizational performance. Inf. Manag. Sci. 19(1), 53–74 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Young, R.: The machine inside the machine: users models of pocket calculators. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 15, 51–85 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Management Studies, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, India

    Mithun J. Sharma

  2. Department of Shipping Management, Korea Maritime University, Busan, South Korea

    Song Jin Yu

Authors
  1. Mithun J. Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Song Jin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mithun J. Sharma or Song Jin Yu.

Appendices

Appendix A

Sample AHP question form for evaluation

Please read the following questions and put check marks on the pair wise comparison matrices. If a criterion on the left is more important than the matching one on the right, put your check mark to the left of the importance ‘Equal’ under the importance level you prefer. If a criterion on the left is less important than the matching on on the right, put your check mark to the right of the importance ‘Equal’ the importance level you chose.

With respect to overall objective of supplier selection corresponding to main criterion Cost (C 1)

  1. 1.

    How important is Product price (M 1) when it is compared with Freight cost (M 2)

  2. 2.

    How important is Product price (M 1) when it is compared with Tariff and duties (M 3)

  3. 3.

    How important is Freight cost (M 2) when it is compared with Tariff and duties (M 3)

Criterion Cost (C 1)

Preference of one sub-criterion over another

Questions

Criteria

Absolute

Very strong

Fairly strong

Weak

Equal

Weak

Fairly strong

Very strong

Absolute

Criteria

1

M 1

         

M 2

2

M 1

         

M 3

3

M 2

         

M 3

With respect to overall objective of supplier selection corresponding to main criterion Quality (C 2)

  1. 1.

    How important is Rejection rate (M 4) when it is compared with Increased lead time (M 5)

  2. 2.

    How important is Rejection rate (M 4) when it is compared with Qulality assessment (M 6)

  3. 3.

    How important is Increased lead time (M 5) when it is compared with Qulality assessment (M 6)

Criterion Profile (C 2)

Preference of one sub-criterion over another

Questions

Criteria

Absolute

Very strong

Fairly strong

Weak

Equal

Weak

Fairly strong

Very strong

Absolute

Criteria

1

M 4

         

M 5

2

M 4

         

M 6

3

M 5

         

M 6

With respect to overall objective of Supplier selection corresponding to main criterion Supplier’s profile (C 4)

  1. 1.

    How important is Financial status (M 10) when it is compared with Customer base (M 11)

  2. 2.

    How important is Financial status (M 10) when it is compared with Facility and capacity (M 12)

  3. 3.

    How important is Customer base (M 11) when it is compared with Facility and capacity (M 12)

Criterion Profile (C 4)

Preference of one sub-criterion over another

Questions

Criteria

Absolute

Very strong

Fairly strong

Weak

Equal

Weak

Fairly strong

Very strong

Absolute

Criteria

1

M 10

         

M 11

2

M 10

         

M 12

3

M 11

         

M 12

Similarly the remaining criteria are put in a similar questionnaire format with which the alternatives are evaluated.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharma, M.J., Yu, S.J. Selecting critical suppliers for supplier development to improve supply management. OPSEARCH 50, 42–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-012-0097-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-012-0097-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation