Accepted Manuscript

An integrated approach for Supplier Portfolio Selection: Lean or Agile?

Mohammad Abdollahi, Jafar Razmi, Meysam Arvan

PII: S0957-4174(14)00495-3
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.019
Reference: ESWA 9500

To appear in: Expert Systems with Applications

Please cite this article as: Abdollahi, M., Razmi, J., Arvan, M., An integrated approach for Supplier Portfolio
Selection: Lean or Agile?, Expert Systems with Applications (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.
2014.08.019

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 The added parts after revision are highlighted in the passage.

An integrated approach for Supplier Portfolio Selection: Lean or Agile?

Mohammad Abdollahia1, Jafar Razmib, Meysam Arvanb

,a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI,
USA

b
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of
Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Supply chain environment is more dynamic and unpredictable than the past; therefore, it
needs to be highly flexible in order to reconfigure in response to changes in their environment
on the spur of the moment. This study presents a framework for supplier selection based on
product-related and organization-related characteristics of the suppliers to be more
competitive in the market and flexible to overcome probable changes in demands, supplies
etc. Product-related and organization-related characteristics are those which are named in this
study as lean and agile criteria respectively. Comprehensively digging up the literature, we
extract the best criteria representing both leanness and agility of an organization. The aim of
this paper is to select an appropriate supplier portfolio based on two aforementioned
concepts. Supplier selection problem is solved using a combination of multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods. Due to the interaction between the criteria, analytical network
process (ANP) is applied for determining the weight of each criterion for each alternative
(supplier), and then data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to rank them. The reason that
DEA is used in this study is that when the number of suppliers increases, ANP approach
tends to work inefficiently. Moreover, for determining the accurate interdependencies
between the proposed criteria, fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory
(DEMATEL) is applied. The framework is applied on a real case to demonstrate its
applicability and feasibility.

1
Corresponding author Abdollahi@wayne.edu

1
Keywords: supplier selection, analytical hierarchy process, lean manufacturing, agile

manufacturing.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the supply chain environment is more dynamic and unpredictable than the

past. Nature of the supply chain is characterized by parameters such as product demand,

product variety, product life-cycle, and other factors (Agrawal et al., 2006). Because these

factors are fluctuating ceaselessly and are not constant, firms must intelligently delineate their

strategy in supply chain to overcome this volatile environment. In addition, firms must note

that their chosen strategy can influence their competitiveness in the market. Thus, firms must

have an exhaustive perspective on competitiveness ingredients to promote and sustain their

situation in the market. This purpose can be obtained by increasing their efficiency and by

responding quickly to the needs of the market. Many enterprises have pursued the “lean”

thinking paradigm to improve the efficiency of their business processes (Manson-jones., et al,

2000). Moreover, becoming more responsive to the needs of the market is not just about the

speed, it also requires a high level of maneuverability that today has come to be termed

“agility” (Christopher, 2000). A part of a firm that possesses a great portion of key activities

is purchasing department. De Boer et al. (2006) declare that by increasing the significance of

purchasing functions, purchasing decisions have become more important. One of important

issues in purchasing department is supplier selection. Supplier selection is undeniably

regarded as the cornerstone of successful purchasing and supply management to maintain and

enhance the competitive edge (Wang, 2010). That is because good supplier selection makes a

significant difference to an organization’s future that can reduce operational costs and

improve the quality of its products and make rapid responses to the customers’ demand. One

of the most important components of the supplier evaluation and selection is criteria

formulation. Wang et al. (2004) state that in lean supplier selection, supplier attributes

2
involve low cost and high quality, and in agile supplier selection, supplier attributes involve

speed, flexibility, and quality. Most of the previous researches have focused on lean

performance of suppliers and only a few of them have focused on the agile performance of

suppliers. However, no one have considered suppliers with these characteristics

simultaneously, and the advantage of considering these two groups of suppliers concurrently

is to achieve low cost and high quality, along with the capability of performing swiftly and

flexibly when required (Wang et al., 2004). After the final selection phase firms must have a

different behavior for relationship management with these two types of suppliers.

In this paper a theoretical framework for supplier selection based on the two groups of

“lean” and “agile” suppliers is presented and a guideline for supplier relationship

management (SRM) for these suppliers has been proposed. To determine the precise

interdependencies between the suggested criteria, fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation

laboratory (DEMATEL) is applied on the problem. Moreover, ANP application finds the

weight of each sub-criterion and finally DEA approach is utilized to rank the suppliers

regards to their score in each criterion. The reason that ANP has not been used for the ranking

is that, when it comes to larger problems with so many alternatives, ANP tend to be

inefficient in ranking the alternatives, but such a problem has not been reported in using

DEA.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: A review on the literature on various

criteria and methods used for supplier selection is presented in the next section. In section 3

the proposed methodology is presented and the criteria formulation is discussed. In section 4

a numerical example is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the model. Section 5

concludes the paper with a discussion of the implications of this study, future research

directions, and concluding remarks.

3
2. Literature review

In the supplier selection arena, there are numerous researches that use different

methodologies to solve the problem. One of the most recent studies that has provided a

reviewed the literature on application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection is

the work of Junyi Chai et al (2014). In this paper the literature review has been investigated

from two perspectives: (1) various criteria used for supplier selection, (2) various methods

used for supplier selection.

2.1. Various criteria used for supplier selection

The number of factors that one could consider for supplier selection is not only large but

also depends on the context (for example strategic or transaction-oriented, etc.), type of the

product, nature of the markets, and so on. Since 1960s, supplier selection criteria and

supplier’s performance have been a focal point of many researchers. The researches

implemented for formulating supplier selection’s criteria are listed in Table1.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

2.2. Various methods used for supplier selection

The receptivity of decision makers to the use of formal decision tools in terms of

formulation of decision criteria, the qualification of suitable candidate-suppliers and

recognition of the need for a new supplier are topics that have been argued widely in the

literature (De Boer & VanderWegen, 2003). As inferred from Table 2 many different

methods are used for supplier selection problems.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

4
 Few works have considered both agile and lean criteria in an integrated way to model

supplier selection problem. Besides, based on the proposed framework, we can use different

concepts to maintain the competitiveness in the market such as different suppliers that are

presented with different levels of leanness and agility. Examples of recent studies that have

used ANP or DEMATEL for supplier selection problem are Yang and Tzeng (2011), and

Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2012), but they have not considered the inefficiency of ANP method

in selecting between numerous alternatives. However, we proposed a solution to this issue by

combining DEA and ANP methods.

Our study contributes to supplier selection knowledge area in three ways. First, this is the

first study in which a framework for agile criteria is presented based on Johnsen and Ford

(2006). Secondly, the selection of suppliers is performed in a way that their leanness and

agility can be calculated separately. This leads to better understanding of suppliers

capabilities and provides better managerial insights towards the problem. In fact, a Pareto

solution will be provided that non-dominated suppliers can be considered as the ideal

suppliers. Thirdly, the proposed methodology in this paper is the first that integrate ANP,

DEMATEL and DEA in a supplier selection context.

3. Proposed methodology

The proposed supplier selection framework is illustrated in Figure 1. Each section will be

explained in details in the following subsections. It should be noticed that i stands for each

indicators index. So, i=0 stands for lean criteria, while i=1 serves as agile one. The

advantages of the proposed method over existing ones are that first when there are numerous

alternatives, ANP fails to rank them efficiently and correctly. However DEA has shown good

ranking capability over other methods, therefore we combined these two methods to solve the

5
above stated problem. It also should be noticed that DEA is unable to consider hierarchical

form of criteria formation; thus, ANP approach is still needed. Secondly, to identify the

network configuration of ANP in a scientific way DEAMTEL is applied to the problem.

[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]

3.1. Formulation of Criteria

Businesses wanting to estimate suppliers’ performance should first observe suppliers

according to evaluation criteria (Chang et al., 2011). In the past, price was the key factor to

choose a supplier because cost reduction is the main consideration for a decision maker.

However, in today’s competitive global business environment, if an enterprise strives to

maintain its competitiveness, its decision maker needs to consider all the dimensions of

supplier’s potency. The supplier selection problem is a group-decision problem made under

numerous criteria such as tangible and intangible, qualitative and quantitative, and by using

uncertain and imprecise data.

In modern, competitive, dynamic and unstable market conditions; firms must be flexible

to provide an agile environment for quick response to the changes in business conditions, also

for being competitive in marketplace firms must concentrate on eliminating the waste or

muda to promote their efficiency and satisfy the consumer’s expectations, that is, produced

items must be at a good level of cost and quality. Hence, for being competitive in the market

these concepts must be considered simultaneously. Based on the two mentioned approach’s

concept, firms must consider “Lean” and “Agile” manufacturing because “Lean” works best

in high volume, low variety and predictable environments while “Agile” is needed in less

predictable environments where the demand is various and considerable (Christopher, 2000).

Most published models in this area focus only on the supplier’s lean manufacturing

perspective, and only a few papers have focused on the supplier’s agile manufacturing

6
perspective while no paper was found that pays attention to these two factors at the same

time. In order to solve the above shortages, we set two groups of criteria: “Agile” and “Lean”

criteria. Combination of agility and leanness in one supply chain via the strategic use of a

decoupling point has been termed ‘‘le-agility’’ (Ben Naylor et al., 1999).

3.1.1. Agile criteria

In today’s competitive business environment to stabilize and improve the firm’s situation

in the marketplace, firms should be more agile and sensitive to changes in demand, policy,

and etc. Agile supply chains need to be highly flexible in order to reconfigure quickly in

response to changes in their environment (Lu et al., 2009). Manufacturing agility is often

defined as the ability to prosper in a competitive business environment characterized by

constant and unpredictable changes (Gunasekaran, 1999). Successful agile companies

manage relationships in such a way that they ‘‘consciously make use of the state of change as

a means to be profitable’’ (Devor et al., 1997). In our research we use the outlet of Johnsen

and Ford (2006) for the main framework of agile criteria, which is developed an interaction

capability framework to assess the species of interaction capabilities for suppliers in order to

cope with the costumers’ demand. However, we have different approach to these interaction

capabilities, that is, these interaction capabilities are considered as the firm’s existent

capability. According to the proposed model the identified features of the supplier’s

interaction capabilities are as follows: (1) Human interaction, (2) technological interaction,

(3) managerial system interaction, and (4) cultural interaction capability.

3.1.1.1 Human capability

One of the important parts of the organizations is human resources department. They can

make the firm more powerful by their activity and knwoledge. Bilateral knowledge

development by employees of supplier and customers can make the firm more agile. Teece

7
(1998) has defined human capability as “The ability to sense and then to seize new

opportunities, and to reconfigure and protect knowledge assets, competencies and

complementary assets and technologies.” We define Human capability as the ability to

recognize new opportunities and threats and teach organization to cope with these external

outcomes using skills and knowledge of the Human resources. The obtained sub-criteria are

as follows:

• Human Resource Quality (Luo et al., 2009; Punniyamoorthy et al.,2011; Sarkar &

Mohapatra 2006)

• Organizational Learning (Luo et al., 2009; Gencer & Gurpinar, 2007; Kogut & Zander,

1992)

• Team Structures (Croom, 2001; Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001; Yauch, 2007)

3.1.1.2. Technological capability

A number of studies have considered technological capability as an important metric for

supplier selection procedure (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Lee et al., 2001; Choy & Lee, 2002;

Kannan & Noorul, 2007; Bhattacharya et al., 2010). Technology means knowledge about

doing practical things, chiefly producing things (In a modern environment, this must include

both goods and services). It is believed to be one of the important supplier selection criteria.

The most important sub-criteria of technological capability are as follows:

• Communication and E-commerce systems (Katsikeas et al., 2004; Gou et al., 2009; Lin et

al., 2011)

• Capability of research & development and innovation (Katsikeas et al., 2004; Lee et al.,

2009; Chen, 2011)

• Production facilities and capacity (Dickson, 1966; Weber et al., 1991; Punniyamoorthy et

al., 2011)

8
3.1.1.3.Managerial systems capability

Managerial systems constitute part of a core capability when they incorporate unusual

blends of skills, and/or foster beneficial behaviors not observed in competitive firms

(Leonard-Barton, 1992). Leonard-Barton (1992) has defined managerial systems interaction

capability as “Formal and informal ways of creating knowledge and controlling knowledge”.

Another definition is presented by Teece (1998) which defines it as “The ability to

strategize”.

The sub-criteria of managerial systems interaction capability are as follows:

• Quality systems (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Hsu & Hu, 2009; Dulmin & Mininno, 2003)

• Financial capability (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Vinodh et al., 2011; Punniyamoorthy et al.,

2011)

• Information sharing level (Luo et al., 2009; Hajji et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2007)

3.1.1.4.Cultural capability

Culture refers to the degree in which norms of behavior govern relationships, whereas

congruent goals represent the degree in which parties share a common understanding and

approach to the achievement of common tasks and outcomes (Villena et al., 2010). Enormous

researches in many fields have showed that culture plays a pivotal role in long-term

relationships between business partners (Ustun & Demirtas, 2008). The obtained sub-criteria

are as follows:

• Communication openness (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Wang, 2010; Ngai et al., 2004)

• Vendor’s image (Katsikeas et al., 2004 ; Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011)

• Mutual trust (Amin et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2010; Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011)

The illustration and structure of these criteria is shown in Figure 2.

9
 [PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]

3.1.2. Lean Criteria

Many enterprises have pursued the lean thinking paradigm to improve the efficiency of

their business processes. Leanness means developing a value stream to eliminate all waste,

including time, and to ensure a level schedule (Naylor et al., 1999). Leanness may be an

element of agility in certain circumstances, but it will not enable the organization to meet the

precise needs of the customers more rapidly (Agarwal et al., 2006). Ho et al (2010) reviewed

methods supporting supplier selection problems since 2000 to 2008. They concluded that the

most popular criterion in previous researches are quality, followed by delivery, price/cost.

Many criteria can be considered for lean suppliers, but problem solution would be very large

and confusing, hence we use three criteria for selecting lean suppliers. They are discussed in

below.

3.1.2.1.Quality

Companies in today’s highly competitive marketplace are forced to deliver goods or

services with prominent privilege to make the costumers satisfied. Quality is the most

important criterion that influences the decision problem on supplier selection in any kinds of

materials and products. Many authors have exclaimed that different aspects of quality can

influence the performance of suppliers (Dickson, 1966; Weber & Current, 1993; Swift, 1995;

Choi & Hartley, 1996; Chang et al., 2007). The derived sub-criteria of quality are as follows:

• Warranties & claim policies (Dickson, 1966; Kuo et al., 2010; Gou et al., 2009)

• Product durability (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Huang & Keskar, 2007; Takeishi,

1998)

• Product performance (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Wang, 2010; Cannon et al., 2010)

10
 • Repair and return rate (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Xia & Wu, 2007; Tam &

Tummala, 2001)

3.1.2.2.Cost

Improvements in the cost of products for buying firms are partially dependent on the

improvements made by their subcomponent suppliers, for example, in reductions in rework,

scrap, and downtimes (Krause et al., 2007). Cost was the first metric for selecting suitable

supplier problems from the past until now. Purchasing department can play a key role in cost

reduction, and supplier selection is one of the most important functions of purchasing

management. Cost is highly tangible for purchasing department of company; thus, it can be

an appropriate measure for evaluating the suppliers. Many of the previous researchers have

considered cost and its derivations as a metric for ponder the supplier’s efficiency (Dickson,

1966; Weber et al., 1991; Swift, 1995; Choi & Hartley, 1996; Hou & Su 2006). The most

three important sub-criteria are as follows:

• Product price (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2011; Choy et al., 2003)

• Logistics costs (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Inman et al., 2011; Ghodsypour &

O’Brien, 2001)

• Payment terms (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011)

3.1.2.3. Delivery

Delivery has attracted great attention of researchers in supplier selection problems

(Dickson, 1966; Weber et al., 1991; Swift, 1995; Choi & Hartley, 1996). It refers to both the

supplier’s logistical performance as well as the critical activities and processes that it

performs from the time that the input is (re) ordered until it arrives at the business customer’s

facility (i.e., order fulfillment), can also influence a business customer’s costs, velocity to

11
market, and/or how its value proposition is perceived by the end user (Bharadwaj, 2004).

Delivery has four primary components:

• Lead time (Kuo et al., 2010; Chen, 2010; Lin et al., 2011)

• On-time delivery (Chen, 2010; Xia & Wu, 2007; Vinodh et al., 2011)

• Safety and security of components (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Wang, 2010)

• Appropriateness of the packaging (Dickson, 1966; Wang, 2010; Punniyamoorthy et

al., 2011)

Figure 3 demonstrates the lean criteria structure.

[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE]

3.2. Evaluate the structure of the network by fuzzy DEMATEL

The DEMATEL method was developed by Science and Human Affairs Program of the

Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva between 1972 and 1976. The foundation of

DEMATEL is based on graph theory and helps the process of analyzing by visualizing the

problem. It uses matrix calculation to get the casual relationships and the impact strength

(Tzeng et al., 2007, Chen et al., 2011). In this paper the DEMATEL is used to find the

interdependencies among the attributes.

DEMATEL is a structural modeling approach which uses matrix calculations to find all

direct and indirect relations between the criteria. This study uses fuzzy DEMATEL for

identifying relations between the criteria. Different degrees of influences are expressed with

five linguistic terms and these linguistic terms are converted to fuzzy triangular numbers as

shown in Table 3.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]

Steps of fuzzy DEMATEL are as follows:

12
 Step1. Gathering experts’ opinions: The influence of criterion i on criterion j is denoted

by Xij and the matrix is named XK which k shows kth expert.

Step2. Replacing linguistic terms with fuzzy triangular numbers.

Step3. Transforming triangular fuzzy numbers into the initial direct-relation matrix F.

This study uses Converting Fuzzy data into Crisp Scores (CFCS) proposed by Chang et al

(2007).

Step4. Calculating normalized initial direct matrix. The normalized initial direct matrix

is:

D = s.A, (1)

In which D represents the normalized initial direct relation matrix and s is calculated

using below equation:

⎡ ⎤
1 1
s = min ⎢ , ⎥ (2)
⎢ max i ∑ n aij max j ∑ i =1 aij ⎥
n

⎣ j =1 ⎦

Step5. Calculating the total relation matrix

In this step indirect effects between criteria are measured so that the matrix T reflects the

total relationship and its elements tij indicate the full direct and indirect influences of criterion

i on criterion j.
−1
T = D (I − D ) (3)

Step6. Define a threshold value to create impact relation map. The threshold value can be

chosen by the decision maker or through discussions with experts. This study uses the

maximum mean de-entropy (MMDE) algorithm developed by Chung et al. to choose the

threshold value.

The steps of MMDE method (Li and Tzeng, 2009) are as follows:

13
 Step1. Transform the matrix T into an ordered set T, {t11,t12 ,...,t 22 ,t 23,...,t nn }, and

rearrange them from large to small and define the corresponding triplets, (t ij , X i , X j ) and

denote it by T ′ .

Step2. Take the second element of ordered triplets of the set and denote the new set T ′ ,

Di
ordered dispatch node set, as T .

D
Step3. Take the first t” element of T Di
and define a new set Tt i , and then calculate

H D of Tt D and denote it by H t D . The mean de-entropy can be obtained by Eq. (4).

i i

H tDi
MDE t
Di
= (4)
N (Tt Di )

Di
Step4. Select the maximum mean de-entropy from C (T ) mean de-entropy values and

D D
its corresponding Tt i and denote it by Tmaxi .

Step5. Take the first u elements of T ′ and denote it as T th

which include all elements

D RE th
of Tmaxi and Tmax .The minimum influence value in T is the threshold value.

According to the calculated threshold value, minor effects in the elements of matrix T are

eliminated and matrix Tp can be defined as follow:

⎧0 if t ij < p
⎪
t pij = ⎪⎨ (5)
⎪t if t ≥ p
⎪⎩ ij ij

3.3. Determining supplier’s weight using ANP

ANP as a general form of AHP introduced by Saaty (1996) considers both outer and inner

dependencies between clusters. This method makes it possible to consider the cycle between

clusters and loop (the influence of one cluster on itself). The general form of AHP provides a

framework for decision making without the assumptions of AHP method and it considers

14
both outer and inner dependencies. Generally, ANP generalized AHP by replacing

hierarchical problem to a network system which includes all the connections between

elements. The steps of ANP in which a novel cluster weighting is used (Yang and Tzeng,

2011) are described below:

Step1. Construction of model and determination of network structure by fuzzy

DEMATEL.

Step2. Map the problem similar to a network using matrix Tp derived from DEMATEL

method and form super matrix through pair wise comparisons and denote it, W.

Step3. Determining pairwise comparison matrices (PCMs) and priority vectors.

Step4. Creation of un-weighted, weighted and limit super matrices. The un-weighted

super matrix denoted by W is constructed by the priority derived from different pairwise

comparisons. The weighted super matrix denoted by Ww is obtained by multiplying each

entry in a block of the component at the top of the super matrix by the priority of influence

component influence on the left from the cluster matrix. ANP considers both direct and

indirect influences between clusters. Limit super matrix as final super matrix denoted by Wf is

calculated by odd powers of Ww to achieve a convergence value as follow:

W f = limW w2 l +1 (6)
l →∞

Now by using the weight of each alternative on each criterion, DEA can be used to rank

the suppliers based in these weights.

3.4. Ranking suppliers using DEA

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) proposed by Charnes et al. (1978) is a mathematical

programming method that measures the relative performance of DMUs. The capability of

DEA in measuring efficiency of DMUs (suppliers) where there are both quantitative and

qualitative criteria, and its ability to identify the potential improvement for inefficient DMUs

15
are two general advantages of DEA that has attracted a lot of attention in recent years.

Generally, there are two basic models for DEA: constant returns-to-scale (CRS) or CCR

model, and variable returns-to-scale (VRS) or BCC model. CCR model is used in this study.

The general form of the model for supplier j could be defined as:

max S j = αT Yq

subject to : αT Y − β T X ≤ 0 ∀ j = 1,..., s
βT Xq = 1 ∀ j = 1,..., s (6)
αk ≥ ε ∀ k = 1,..., m
βi ≥ ε ∀ i = 1,..., n

Where:

αk : The weight of output k

αT : The vector of output weights

βi : The weight of input i

βT : The vector of input weights

ykj : The amount of output k of DMU j

Yq : The Vector of output weights by the target DMU

xij : The amount of input k of DMU j

Xq : The Vector of input weights by the target DMU

m : Number of outputs

n : Number of inputs

s : Number of DMUs

ε : Very small positive number

16
4. Numerical example

In this section a numerical example is provided to demonstrate how the proposed

framework can be implemented in practice. At the first step, the average matrixes for the

attributes (Lean and Agile attributes) are shown in tables 4 and 5. P1, P2 … Pn denote for agile

main criteria namely cultural capability, managerial system capability, technological

capability, and human capability respectively. Moreover H1, H2, and H3 represent cost,

quality, and delivery criteria respectively.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 4,5 ABOUT HERE]

Step2. The normalized initial direct relation matrixes are calculated using Eq. (2), and Eq.

(3). The results are shown in Tables 6, 7.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 6,7 ABOUT HERE]

Step3. The total relation matrixes derived from Eq. (3) and it are shown in Tables 8, 9.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 8,9 ABOUT HERE]

Using matrix Tp derived from previous step and the threshold value obtained from

MMDE method, we can map the problem. The achieved networks are demonstrated in

Figures 4 and

[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 4,5 ABOUT HERE]

Now, the ANP approach applies to the problem and defines the weight of each criterion

for each supplier. First step of ANP is constructing the model. The model in this step is

constructed regards to DEMATEL results. The model is shown in Figure 6. Notice that the

interactions between criteria are depicted regards to DEMATEL final matrix. For legibility of

17
the figure self-interactions are ignored. The second step is determining pairwise comparison

matrixes (PCMs) and priority vectors. This step leads to calculating un-weighted, weighted

and limit super matrices. Limit super matrix is shown in Table 10.

[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE]

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE]

18
The last step of ANP method is calculating final weighted super matrix which derived from

Equation 6 and the result is shown in Table 11.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 11 ABOUT HERE]

Now the weights of all criteria namely cost, quality, for leanness, and human Capability

technological system capability and managerial cultural capability for agility are calculated. It

should be noticed that the weights are calculated considering sub-criteria and the hierarchy

form of the problem. Therefore, using the weight of each alternative on each criterion, now

we can rank the suppliers by DEA. For the lean indicators, cost is considered to be input of

the CCR model, and consequently we take quality and delivery as output. On the other hand,

human and managerial capabilities directly affect cultural and technological abilities of the

firm. Therefore, we considered the first mentioned indicators as input and the latter as output.

Then we ran the CCR-DEA model and the results are shown in Table 12.

Afterward, the suppliers are classified into four categories that are shown in Figure 7.

[PLEASE INSERT TABLE 12 ABOUT HERE]

[PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 7 ABOUT HERE]

This research proposes crucial managerial implications. The methodology proposed in this

article can be utilized to make critical managerial decisions such as optimization of the

suppliers’ network, effective allocation of resources to supplier development programs and

initiatives, and initiation of benchmarking and reengineering programs. The following

conclusions and recommendations that emerged from this study are currently under

consideration for implementation by Company X. In optimizing the suppliers’ network,

managers can utilize the classifications suggested in this study to reduce their supply base, by

19
pruning suppliers in the LL cluster or by allocating less business to these suppliers. In

addition, management can provide these suppliers with possible benchmarks for

improvement and set expectations for target times to match them. This is one of the critical

managerial advantages of the proposed methodology. Effective allocation of resources for

supplier development programs is often a difficult decision for managers. The methodology

in the research suggests that LH suppliers are the primary candidates for such programs.

These suppliers are efficient and have the infrastructure to become high performers with

allocation of resources. HH suppliers are the star performers, and these are the type of

suppliers with which Company X needs to develop a long-term relationship. LL suppliers are

candidates for “pruning.” LH suppliers are candidates for further development. It is here that

Company X must invest in terms of supplier development programs and initiatives for

making this cluster of suppliers to improve their performance. Finally, HH suppliers represent

potential long-term risk in that they are performing satisfactorily now, but most likely do not

have a structure and organizational capabilities that can sustain performance in the future.

Thus, they should not be neglected and the development programs should be continued for

them. Although, their priority is less than other groups, since HH suppliers’ performance is

superior to them.

5. Conclusion

This article has proposed a framework for supplier evaluation and selection based on lean

and agile criteria. The analysis is based on a DEMATEL-ANP-DEA model that allows

incorporation of multiple suppliers in determining the relative efficiencies. The efficiency

scores in combination with the performance scores are utilized in classifying suppliers into

four categories. Benchmarks are provided for improving the operations of poorly performing

suppliers. Several useful managerial insights and implications from the study are also

discussed.

20
 There are several advantages to the proposed approach. The DEA score is a surrogate for

“overall competence and capability” of a supplier, which cannot be easily and cost-

effectively discerned through supplier audits. Another advantage of this approach is in

identifying strategically important suppliers. The leanness-agility-based evaluation methods

are based on evaluating “point-in-time” data in that the data are a snapshot of the supplier’s

performance in time. In evaluating suppliers from a strategic perspective, it can be argued

that evaluations based on inherent competence and capability is likely to be more

comprehensive. In this study supplier selection problem is solved using a combination of

multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. Due to the interaction between the criteria,

analytical network process (ANP) is applied for determining the weight of each criterion and

then, data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to rank the suppliers. For determining the

accurate interdependencies between the criteria, fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation

laboratory (DEMATEL) is applied. To our best of knowledge, no previous work investigated

such a problem by an integrated method with DEMATEL, ANP, and DEA.

Future researches can apply the approach to other aspects and concepts in businesses.

Considering concepts such as resilience that have gained considerable attentions in recent

researches in the field of risk management can be a hint for this purpose. Based on

relationships between suppliers and manufacturers such as complexity of transactions, the

ability to codify transactions, and the degree of explicit coordination and power asymmetry

between suppliers and manufacturers; new criteria can be introduced and mixed with the

criteria used in the paper. This would make a more robust portfolio of suppliers. In addition,

fuzzy numbers can be introduced in the AHP or ANP methods to more effectively analyze

cases having greater uncertainty in the data.

21
References

Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain:
An ANP-based approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 173(1), 211-225.
Aktar Demirtas, E., & Ustun, O. (2009). Analytic network process and multi-period goal programming
integration in purchasing decisions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(2), 677-690.
Amin, S. H., Razmi, J., & Zhang, G. (2011). Supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy SWOT
analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 334-342.
Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., & Giacchetta, G. (2006). A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(1), 14-27.
Ben Naylor, J., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of production economics, 62(1), 107-118.
Bharadwaj, N. (2004). Investigating the decision criteria used in electronic components procurement. Industrial
Marketing Management, 33(4), 317-323.
Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J., & Young, P. (2010). Supplier selection paradigm: An integrated hierarchical
QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Applied Soft Computing, 10(4), 1013-1027.
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP
and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000-3011.
Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. (2010). Building long-term orientation in buyer–
supplier relationships: the moderating role of culture. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 506-521.
Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A
systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885.
Chang, B., Chang, C. W., & Wu, C. H. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1850-1858.
Chang, S. L., Wang, R. C., & Wang, S. Y. (2007). Applying a direct multi-granularity linguistic and strategy-
oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of supply performance. European Journal of Operational
Research, 177(2), 1013-1025.
Chen, Y. J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information
Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670.
Choi, T. Y., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain.
Journal of operations management, 14(4), 333-343.
Choy, K. L., & Lee, W. B. (2002). A generic tool for the selection and management of supplier relationships in
an outsourced manufacturing environment: the application of case based reasoning. Logistics Information
Management, 15(4), 235-253.
Choy, K. L., Lee, W., & Lo, V. (2003). Design of a case based intelligent supplier relationship management
system—the integration of supplier rating system and product coding system. Expert Systems with
Applications, 25(1), 87-100.
Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets. Industrial marketing
management, 29(1), 37-44.
Croom, S. R. (2001). The dyadic capabilities concept: examining the processes of key supplier involvement in
collaborative product development. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(1), 29-37.
De Boer, L., & Van der Wegen, L. L. M. (2003). Practice and promise of formal supplier selection: a study of
four empirical cases. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(3), 109-118.

22
De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2), 75-89.
DeVOR, R. I. C. H. A. R. D., Graves, R., & MILLS, J. J. (1997). Agile manufacturing research:
accomplishments and opportunities. IIE transactions, 29(10), 813-823.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of purchasing, 2(1), 5-
17.
Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2003). Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision aid method. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(4), 177-187.
Ebrahim, R. M., Razmi, J., & Haleh, H. (2009). Scatter search algorithm for supplier selection and order lot
sizing under multiple price discount environment. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(9), 766-776.
Ertugrul Karsak, E., & Dursun, M. (2014). An Integrated Supplier Selection Methodology Incorporating QFD
and DEA with Imprecise Data. Expert Systems with Applications.
Gencer, C., & Gürpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic
firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(11), 2475-2486.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & O'brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated
analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International journal of production economics, 56, 199-
212.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’brien, C. (2001). The total cost of logistics in supplier selection, under conditions of
multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity constraint. International Journal of Production Economics,
73(1), 15-27.
Guo, X., Yuan, Z., & Tian, B. (2009). Supplier selection based on hierarchical potential support vector machine.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 6978-6985.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development. International journal
of production economics, 62(1), 87-105.
Hajidimitriou, Y. A., & Georgiou, A. C. (2002). A goal programming model for partner selection decisions in
international joint ventures. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(3), 649-662.
Hajji, A., Gharbi, A., Kenne, J. P., & Pellerin, R. (2011). Production control and replenishment strategy with
multiple suppliers. European Journal of Operational Research, 208(1), 67-74.
Ho, W., Xu, X., & 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.
Hou, J., & Su, D. (2006). Integration of web services technology with business models within the total product
design process for supplier selection. Computers in Industry, 57(8), 797-808.
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic
network process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 255-264.
Huang, S. H., & Keskar, H. (2007). Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection.
International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2), 510-523.
Inman, R. A., Sale, R. S., Green Jr, K. W., & Whitten, D. (2011). Agile manufacturing: relation to JIT,
operational performance and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 343-355.
Johnsen, R. E., & Ford, D. (2006). Interaction capability development of smaller suppliers in relationships with
larger customers. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 1002-1015.
Kannan, G., & Haq, A. N. (2007). Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the selection of
supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment. International Journal of Production Research,
45(17), 3831-3852.
Karpak, B., Kumcu, E., & Kasuganti, R. R. (2001). Purchasing materials in the supply chain: managing a multi-
objective task. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(3), 209-216.
Katsikeas, C. S., Paparoidamis, N. G., & Katsikea, E. (2004). Supply source selection criteria: The impact of
supplier performance on distributor performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 755-764.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383-397.

23
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development,
commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(2), 528-545.
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management
science, 47(1), 1-21.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for
green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1161-1170.
Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech
industry. Expert systems with applications, 36(4), 7917-7927.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on
technology‐based ventures. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 615-640.
Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product
development. Strategic management journal, 13(S1), 111-125.
Lin, C. T., Chen, C. B., & Ting, Y. C. (2011). An ERP model for supplier selection in electronics industry.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1760-1765.
Luo, X., Wu, C., Rosenberg, D., & Barnes, D. (2009). Supplier selection in agile supply chains: An information-
processing model and an illustration. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(4), 249-262.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply chain to the
marketplace. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4061-4070.
Ngai, E. W. T., Cheng, T. C. E., & Ho, S. S. M. (2004). Critical success factors of web-based supply-chain
management systems: an exploratory study. Production Planning & Control, 15(6), 622-630.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mathiyalagan, P., & Parthiban, P. (2011). A strategic model using structural equation
modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 458-474.
Razmi, J., & Rafiei, H. (2010). An integrated analytic network process with mixed-integer non-linear
programming to supplier selection and order allocation. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 49(9-12), 1195-1208.
Razmi, J., Rafiei, H., & Hashemi, M. (2009). Designing a decision support system to evaluate and select
suppliers using fuzzy analytic network process. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57(4), 1282-1290.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process.
Sarkar, A., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2006). Evaluation of supplier capability and performance: A method for supply
base reduction. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(3), 148-163.
Swift, C. O. (1995). Preferences for single sourcing and supplier selection criteria. Journal of Business
Research, 32(2), 105-111.
Tadić, S., Zečević, S., & Krstić, M. (2014). A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy
ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Systems with Applications.
Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter‐and intra‐firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in
automobile product development. Strategic management journal, 22(5), 403-433.
Tam, M. C., & Tummala, V. M. (2001). An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications
system. Omega, 29(2), 171-182.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: THE NEW ECONOMY, MARKETS FOR
KNOW-HOW, AND INTAGIBLE ASSETS. California management review, 40(3).
Ustun, O. (2008). An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for multi-period lot-sizing with
supplier selection. Omega, 36(4), 509-521.
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011). The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital
perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 561-576.
Vinodh, S., Anesh Ramiya, R., & Gautham, S. G. (2011). Application of fuzzy analytic network process for
supplier selection in a manufacturing organisation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 272-280.

24
Wang, G., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2004). Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated
multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International journal of production economics, 91(1), 1-15.
Wang, W. P. (2010). A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 34(10), 3130-3141.
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. European Journal of
Operational Research, 68(2), 173-184.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European journal
of operational research, 50(1), 2-18.
Wu, C., & Barnes, D. (2010). Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply chains: A Dempster–Shafer
belief acceptability optimisation approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 284-
293.
Xia, W., & Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments. Omega,
35(5), 494-504.
Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel
cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1417-1424.
Yauch, C. A. (2007). Team-based work and work system balance in the context of agile manufacturing. Applied
Ergonomics, 38(1), 19-27.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke Jr, J. W. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents
in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 318-328.

25
 Supplier
Portfolio
Selection

i=0

Determine group i
indicators

Apply Fuzzy- DEMATEL

to depict ANP network for
group i indicators

i=i+1
Apply ANP to extract each
indicators weight for group
i indicators

Apply CCR-DEA to
determine each supplier’s
efficiency

i <2 No

Plot portfolio matrix for

managerial decisions

Figure 1- General framework of the proposed model

26
 Agile Criteria

Human Capability Technological Capability Managerial System Capability Cultural Capability

Human Resource Communication & Quality Systems Communication

Quality E-Commerce System Openness

Organizational Capability of R&D Financial Vendor’s Image

Learning and Innovation Capability

Team Structures Production Facilities Information Mutual Trust

and Capacity Sharing Level

Figure 2- Agile criteria and sub-criteria

Lean Criteria

Cost Quality Delivery

Products Prices Warranties & Claim Lead Time

Policies

Logistics Cost Product Durability On-Time

Delivery

Payment Terms Product Performance Safety & Security

Appropriateness
of the Packing

Figure 3- Lean criteria and sub-criteria

27
 Technological
Capability

Human
Managerial Capability
system Capability

Cultural
Capability

Figure 4- DEMATEL network for agile criteria

Cost

Quality
Delivery

Figure 5- DEMATEL network for lean criteria

28
 Supplier selection

Dimensions Agile Lean

Cultural Managerial Technological

Criteria Capability System Capability Capability
Human Capability Cost Quality Delivery

• Communication &
• Human Resource • Quality Systems • Lead Time
E-Commerce • Communication • Products Prices • Warranties & Claim
Quality • Financial Capability • On-Time Delivery
• Capability of R&D Openness • Logistics Cost Policies
Sub-Criteria • Organizational • Information Sharing • Safety & Security
and Innovation • Vendor’s Image • Payment Terms • Product Durability
Learning Level • Appropriateness of
• Production Facilities • Mutual Trust • Product Performance
• Team Structures the Packing
and Capacity

Alternatives Supplier 1 Supplier 2 ……………. Supplier N

Figure 6- ANP model to find each criterion weight for each supplier

29
 Leannes

High
1,9,18,19 11,14

3,4,6,10,13,15,
2,5,7,8,12,16,20 17
Low

Agility
Low High

Figure 7- portfolio matrix for supplier relationship management

30
Table 1- Various criteria used for supplier selection
Research articles
Dickson (1966)
Weber et al. (1991)
Ghodsypour & O’Brien (2001)
Kahraman et al (2003)
Wu & Barnes (2010)
Chang et al. (2011)
Setak et al. (2012)
Contributions
Identified 23 important evaluation criteria based on a survey of 273
purchasing manager from United States and Canada
Reviewed and classified 74 articles addressed the supplier selection problem
Stated that cost, quality, and service have considerable effects on supplier
selection parameters
Mentioned that selection criteria typically fall into one of four categories:
supplier criteria, product performance criteria, service performance criteria,
and cost criteria
Advanced Dempster–Shafer and optimisation theories for formulating criteria
to use in partner selection decision-making in agile supply chains
Used fuzzy DEMATEL method for selecting the most effective and efficient
criteria. Their research result that the stable delivery of goods has the most
influence and the strongest connection to other criteria.
Reviewed supplier selection and order allocation models based on an
extensive search in the literature and stated that price, quality, and delivery is
the most common criteria used for supplier selection.
31
Table 2-Various methods used for supplier selection
Research articles
Ghodsypour & O’Brien (1998)
Karpak et al (2001)
Hajidimitriou & Georgiou (2002)
Dulmin & Mininno (2003)
Bevilacqua et al. (2006)
Luo et al. (2009)
Razmi & Maghool (2009)
Ebrahim et al. (2009)
Razmi et al. (2009)
Razmi and Rafiei (2010)
Amin et al. (2011)
Buyukozkan D CifcI (2011)
2
House of quality
3
Quality function deployment
4
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
Contributions
Integrated AHP and linear programming to consider both tangible and
intangible factors in choosing the best suppliers and placing the optimum
order quantities.
Constructed a goal programming (GP) model to evaluate and select the
suppliers. Three goals were considered in the model, including cost, quality,
and delivery reliability. The model was to determine the optimal amount of
products ordered, while subjecting to buyer’s demand and supplier’s
capacity constraints.
Employed a goal programming technique for the supplier selection problem
that was able to achieve multiple goals for different levels of performance
of the corresponding attributes.
Used PROMETHEE and geometrical analysis techniques to rank
alternatives and to analyze the relationships between criteria.
Have proposed the introduction of fuzzy technique in the HOQ2 approach
(i.e., in QFD3) for supplier selection process.
Used radial basis function artificial neural network (RBF-ANN) to enable
potential suppliers to be assessed against multiple criteria using both
quantitative and qualitative measures in an agile supply chain.
a fuzzy bi-objective model is proposed for multiple item, multiple period,
supplier selection, and purchasing problem under capacity constraint and
budget limitation.
Proposed a mathematical model which considers different types of discount
(all-unit cost, incremental discount, and total business volume discount)
through a multi-objective formulation for single item purchasing problem
and solved it using scatter search method.
A hybridization of ANP and fuzzy sets theory is proposed to model and
solve the supplier selection problem under uncertain nature of the decision
making process. The proposed model is enhanced with a non-linear
programming model to elicit weights of comparisons from comparison
matrices in the ANP structure.
Addressed supplier selection problem with order allocation strategy for
strategic items considering materials’ characteristics as well as suppliers’
characteristics. They proposed an analytic network process (ANP) sub-
model to qualify suppliers and filter-suitable candidates among the available
ones.
They applied quantified SWOT4 in the context of supplier selection for the
first time. In addition, the fuzzy logic and triangular fuzzy numbers are
integrated with SWOT analysis – as a novel innovation – to deal with
vagueness of human thought.
Developed a novel approach based on a fuzzy ANP model within a multi-
person decision making scheme under incomplete preference relationships.
This method’s advantages make possible sufficient evaluation using the
provided preference information and maintaining the evaluation
consistency.
32
Ertugrul Karsak, & Dursun, Proposed a novel fuzzy decision framework that integrates QFD and DEA
(2014) for supplier selection. The proposed approach incorporates imprecise data
into the analysis using linguistic variables.

Snežana Tadić et al (2014) They proposed a novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM model for solving complex
problems which combines DEMATEL, ANP and VIKOR methods in a
fuzzy context. The model is applied on city logistics concept selection for
the City of Belgrade.

33
Table 3- Corresponding linguistic terms for evaluation

influence score Corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers

Linguistic variable
(TFNs)
No influence (NO) 0 (0,0,0.25)
Very low influence (VL) 1 (0,0.25,0.5)
Low influence (L) 2 (0.25,0.5,0.75)
High influence (H) 3 (0.5,0.75,1)
Very high influence (VH) 4 (0.75,1,1)

34
Table 4-average matrix for agile criteria
Agile P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 0 2 3 2
P2 1 0 1 0
P3 3 1 0 3
P4 2 0 1 0

Table 5-average matrix for lean criteria

Lean H1 H2 H3
H1 0 4 3
H2 4 0 0
H3 2 0 0

Table 6-The normalized initial direct relation matrix for agile attributes

P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 0 0.28 0.42 0.28
P2 0.14 0 0.14 0
P3 0.42 0.14 0 0.42
P4 0.28 0 0.14 0

Table 7-The normalized initial direct relation matrix for lean attributes

H1 H2 H3
H1 0 0.57 0.47
H2 0.57 0 0
H3 0.25 0 0

35
Table 8-Total relation matrix for agile criteria

P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 0.05179 0.60854 0.40523 0.37577
P2 0.20011 0.42685 0.36631 0.15879
P3 0.20592 0.20172 0.14589 0.68316
P4 0.30041 0.02148 0.09246 0.01418

Table 9-Total relation matrix for lean criteria

H1 H2 H3
H1 0.31549 0.11923 0.26502
H2 0.70049 0.32448 0.07179
H3 0.36607 0.00795 0.10460

36
Table 10. Limit super matrix

Lean Criteria Agile Criteria

Cost Quality Delivery Human Technological Managerial Cultural

H11 H12 H13 H21 H22 H23 H31 H32 H33 H34 P11 P12 P13 P21 P22 P23 P31 P32 P33 P41 P42 P43

H11 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
Cost

H12 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

H13 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

H21 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
Quality

Lean H22 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032

Criteria H23 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021

H31 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
Delivery

H32 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041

H33 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034

H34 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042

P11 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059
Human

P12 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024

P13 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044
Managerial Technological

P21 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229

P22 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051

Agile P23 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
Criteria P31 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

P32 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052

P33 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049

P41 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052
Cultural

P42 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053

P43 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 37

0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Table 11- ANP weights of each criterion for suppliers

Cost Quality Delivery Human Technological Managerial Cultural

S1 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.1 0.08 0.12 0.13
S2 0.14 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.27
S3 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.15
S4 0.1 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.22
S5 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.2
S6 0.13 0.12 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.22
S7 0.25 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.04 0.12 0.15
S8 0.11 0.08 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.14 0.09
S9 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.16
S10 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.19 0.1 0.22 0.17
S11 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.1 0.13
S12 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.15
S13 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.2 0.12
S14 0.16 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.18
S15 0.12 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.24 0.15 0.21
S16 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.15
S17 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.23
S18 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.2
S19 0.16 0.11 0.2 0.03 0.1 0.17 0.23
S20 0.24 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.2

38
Table 12- DEA output

Supplier CCR Leanness CCR agility Classification*

1 1 0.764 HL
2 0.272 0.562 LL
3 0.501 1 LH
4 0.320 1 LH
5 0.354 0.702 LL
6 0.725 1 LH
7 0.627 0.234 LL
8 0.449 0.723 LL
9 1 0.78 HL
10 0.464 0.867 LH
11 1 0.805 HH
12 0.494 0.435 LL
13 0.563 0.904 LH
14 1 1 HH
15 0.399 1 LH
16 0.741 0.354 LL
17 0.556 0.855 LH
18 1 0.733 HL
19 1 0.773 HL
20 0.798 0.643 LL

* LL= Low Leanness and Low Agility; LH= Low Leanness and High Agility; HL= High Leanness and Low

Agility; HE= High Leanness and High Agility

39
• Proposing a new integrated approach for supplier selection.
• Providing analytical results and managerial implications based on the suppliers
group.
• Providing a supplier portfolio to be more dynamic in today’s unpredictable
environment.

40