International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(8) August 2013, Pages: 565-575

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

ISSN
2306-7276

www.tijournals.com

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier

Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study
Malihe Dehghani *1, Majid Esmaeilian 2, Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam 3
1

Factuly of Management, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Department of Management, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran.
3
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2

AR TIC LE INF O

AB STR AC T

Keywords:

In recent decades, purchasing management in a supply chain has been a challenge for most
companies. In most industries, the cost of raw materials constitutes the principal cost of the final
products. Therefore, purchasing department can play a key role in company's efficiency and
effectiveness. Absolutely, with the increasing importance of purchasing, purchasing decisions have
also been more important. In recent years, the amount of environmental consideration have been
one of the important issues was added to supplier selection decisions. In this study, an approach is
proposed for supplier selection and allocation taking into account the environmental implications.
In that case, the most important purchase items are identified using ABC analysis. Then, in order to
evaluate the performance of suppliers accurately, performance evaluation criteria are identified and
screened. Next, using Analytic Network Process (ANP), suppliers are ranked. Finally, orders
allocation is done to qualified suppliers through implementing a linear multi-objective
programming model. To show the applicability of proposed approach, purchasing process of Asia
Pishro Diesel Company was studied as a case study.

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Green Supplier selection
Orders allocation
Analytic Network Process (ANP)

2013 Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1.

Introduction

The supplier selection problem deals with defining potential suppliers, selecting the best set of suppliers among them, and determining the
shipment quantity of each (Weber et al., 1991). According to Patton (1997), and Michaels et al. (1995), supplier evaluation and selection is
a key element in the industrial buying process, and appears to be one of the major activities of the professional industries. Many industrial
managers and practitioners select suppliers based on their experience and perceptions.
The literature on supplier selection has two directions: one is mainly qualitative and focused primarily on methodological aspects, and the
other is the introduction of mathematical or quantitative decision-making approaches (Arabzad et al., 2013; Ghorbani et al., 2012).
Mathematical programming (MP) models can be further divided into linear programming, mixed integer programming, goal programming,
and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). Fuzzy set theory has also been applied to tackle the impreciseness and uncertainty that are
normally found in supplier selection processes (Zadeh, 1965). For example, Jain et al. (2004) proposed an evolutionary fuzzy-based
approach to tackle the complications related to the qualitative assessments of suppliers. Carrera & Mayorga (2008) provided a fuzzy set
application in supplier selection for new product development. Arabzad et al. (2011) used fuzzy set theory along with FMEA and MCDM
techniques to deal with supplier selection problem through classifying purchasing items.
Due to the fact that the ANP can consider the interrelationships among elements in a problem setting, the use of the ANP in supplier
selection has increased substantially in recent years. The works are briefly reviewed here. Meade et al. (1997) adopted the ANP and the
utility theory to justify strategic relationships, which are driven by corporate strategies. Sarkis & Talluri (2002) constructed an ANP
supplier evaluation and selection model by considering multiple factors including strategic, operational, tangible and intangible measures.
Bayazit (2006) and Gencer & Grpinar (2007) also applied the ANP for supplier selection. Shyur & Shih (2006) established a five-step
hybrid model, by combining the ANP and the modified technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for
vendor evaluation. Demirtas & stn (2008) integrated the ANP and the multi-objective mixed integer linear programming (MOMILP) in
supplier selection. Through the ANP, both tangible and intangible factors are considered in ranking suppliers, and MOMILP is applied to
calculate the optimum quantities among selected suppliers to maximize the total value of purchasing and minimize the budget and defect
rate. stn & Demirtas (2008a) proposed another integrated model similar to that in Demirtas & stn (2008), but multi-period lot sizing
is considered here and the total cost among periods is balanced. Demirtas & stn (2009), under a multi-period inventory lot sizing
scenario and single product with multiple suppliers, further suggested an integrated approach of Archimedean goal programming (AGP)
and the ANP. stn & Demirtas (2008b), differentiated from other works by the same authors, integrated the ANP with achievement
* Corresponding author.
Email address: m.arabzad@yahoo.com

Malihe Dehghani et al.

566

Int ernational Journal of Ec onomy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sc iences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

scalarizing functions consisting of min-max goal programming (MGP) and AGP regarding to decision makers preferences. Wu et al.
(2009) proposed an integrated MCDM process by using the ANP and mixed integer programming (MIP) to optimize the selection of
supplier and to allocate order quantities if the supplier uses bundling strategy.

2.

FANP for supplier selection

A model that incorporates fuzzy set theory into the ANP (Super matrix) for supplier selection is proposed here (Lee et al. 2009). The steps
are as follows.
Step 1: Define the unstructured problem
The problem should be stated clearly and be put in broad context including the objectives and the outcomes.
Step 2: Construct the network
The problem is decomposed into a rational system like a network. The structure can be obtained by the opinion of experts through
brainstorming or other appropriate methods.
Step 3: Employ questionnaire and pairwise comparisons
Decision makers are asked to pairwise compare the elements in a questionnaire. The scores of pairwise comparison of each part of the
questionnaire from each expert are transformed into linguistic variables by the transformation concept. For example, with pairwise
comparison of criteria with respect to the overall objective, we can obtain a matrix (

~
Ak ) for expert k:

(1)
where n is the number of criteria.
Step 4: Aggregate experts opinions and build aggregated pairwise comparison matrices
If there are k experts, every pairwise comparison between two elements has k positive reciprocal triangular fuzzy numbers. Geometric
average approach is employed to aggregate decision-makers responses, and a synthetic triangular fuzzy number is resolved:
1
~
rij (a~ij1 a~ij 2 ... a~ijk ) k

(2)

Defuzzy each triangular fuzzy number into a crisp number Fij by the center of gravity (COG) method. For a triangular fuzzy number

~
rij (lij , mij , uij )

Fij

the COG is (Yagar 1980; Klir and Yuan 1995):

[(uij lij ) (mij lij )]

3

lij

lij mij uij

3

(3)

The aggregated pairwise comparison matrix is:

(4)
Step 7: Transform unweighted super matrix into weighted super matrix
There are basically two ways to transform an unweighted super matrix to a weighted super matrix. A recommended approach is to
determine the relative importance of the clusters in the super matrix with the column cluster (block) as the controlling component (Saaty,
1996). Another simplified way is to give equal weights to the blocks in the same column and to make each column sums to unity (Lee et al.
2008). The resulted super matrix is a weighted super matrix.

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study

567

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

Step 8: Calculate the limit super matrix

The weighted super matrix is raised to the power of 2k+1 to obtain the limit super matrix.
Step 9: Rank the alternatives
If the unweighted super matrix formed in Step 6 covers the whole network, the priority weights of alternatives can be found in the
alternative-to-goal block, i.e. block (4,1), in the limit super matrix.
Step 10: Perform sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the robustness of the ranking of the alternatives. It is done by exchanging each criterions
weight with the weight of another criterion while the weights of other criteria remain unchanged (nt 2009).

3.

Proposed Approach

The present study tries to introduce a model to select the best suppliers and also the optimum dedication for shopping orders. According to
Figure 1, the proposed model includes four main phases. In the first phase, all purchase goods of the company are examined and
categorized by ABC tools based on their benefit. The second phase deals with recognizing and ranking suppliers evaluative criteria. Then
in the third phase suppliers of purchased goods are evaluated through employing evaluative criteria as well as analysis process tools of
fuzzy network. Finally, purchase orders are devoted to more efficient supplier by using a mathematical planning model.

Figure 1. The proposed approach

First Step: Categorizing purchase goods

In this phase, all needed purchase goods of the company will be recognized based on total cost (The result of multiplying amount in price).
Then using ABC analysis helps classify the goods in 3 groups of A, B and C. During this research, merely suppliers evaluation will be
highlighting due to the importance of first group along with research limitation.
Second phase: Evaluating selection criteria of suppliers
In order to evaluate the criteria, a decision making team is formed. Evaluative criteria as well as selection of suppliers are determined
according to review of literature along with the teams opinion. Meanwhile, green criteria (compatible with environment) are also taken
into consideration.
Third phase: Evaluating suppliers' performance
In this phase, using experts opinions through the questionnaire resulted in choosing superior criteria among primary ones. The main reason
of screening criteria is to evaluate them as well as related suppliers precisely. Evaluative super matrix will be formed, matched with
analysis process tools of fuzzy network through examining the possible relationship. Hence, final weights of criteria along with final score
of supplier will be clear.
Fourth phase: Allocating orders
After evaluating suppliers and determining the relative importance of their supremacy, now this question would be raised that How much
order is dedicated to each one? Considering goals, plans and limitations of the case study, a mathematical planning model is picked for
dedication.

Malihe Dehghani et al.

568

Int ernational Journal of Ec onomy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sc iences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

4.

Case Study: Asia Pishro Diesel Company

Since 1978, Asia Pishro Diesel Company has started its job as manufacturing auto body parts, mould and structural designing. This
company enjoys a land of 50000 m2 and 33000 m2 roofed building in Isfahan province, Najafabad city. Furthermore, about more than 400
engineer/specialist and technical workers work there. This company has designed and produced 400 ton, 600 ton and 830 ton hydraulic
presses in 1993. Also in 2002, it could win ISO-9001 certificate for manufacturing auto body parts and mould. Its activities continued as
designing and manufacturing all different kinds of mould of Bus and minibus along with having some international contracts with
companies such as Diemeler Klaiesser during 2002-2009. In the same year, ISO 9001:2008 was received by the company. Moreover in
2012, wining ISO 3834:2005 certificate along with Research and Development certificate of Industry, Mining and commerce ministry was
another honor for the company. Now, the company tries to optimize its purchase process management in order to have a powerful presence
for sale and also compete with other rivals in national and international markets. Due to this fact that purchase process plays a vital role its
success. The correct and proper selection of importance suppliers will more significant.

5.

Methodology and Results

In order to implement the suggested model for selecting suppliers and dedicating purchase orders in Asia Pishro Diesel Company, the
following steps need to be taken.
First step Forming evaluation team
The first step in a decision making is preparing a decision-making team. Decision makers play a crucial role in determining relative weight
of evaluative criteria directly and in ranking suppliers indirectly. About selecting the members of decision-making team, business and
quality managers as well as other influential managers on purchase decisions have been chosen. Furthermore, in order to use scientific and
theoretic ideas, some university professors with industrial research backgrounds have been added to the team. Finally a 15 member team
was formed.
Second step - Recognizing purchase items
In case study, during every period, 16 items are purchase outsourcing, including sheet, foam, profiles, engine oil, thinner, deice, glass, seat,
color and hardener, putty, cooler gas, battery, fiber, primer, fire extinguisher and activator.
Third step - Classification of purchase items
Keeping all suppliers of purchase items into account is a difficult and time-consuming job which cannot be covered in this research. Hence
examining the importance of purchase items, researchers selected the most significant and sensitive purchase items. That explains why
purchase items according to ABC analysis tools are categorized to three groups of A, B and C. Based on ABC method, 20 percent of group
As purchase items includes 80% of total purchase importance. Related data to purchase items and classification through ABC tools are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Purchasing items and classification based on ABC analysis

Row

Purchasing Items

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Steel Sheet
Foam
Profiles
Engine Oil
Thinner
Antifreeze
Glass
Seat
Paint & Hardener
Putty
Cooler Gas
Battery
Fiber
Primer
Fire Extinguishers
Activator
Total

Price
14,291,045,291
1,141,221,064
1,486,183,230
908,115,104
588,074,992
495,150,000
6,799,163,205
9,615,555,500
783,775,897
185,460,567
477,484,464
2,245,310,004
1,090,159,496
176,950,000
8,565,000
82,000,000
40,374,213,813

Quantity
1,457,763
131,203
77,600
32,448
28,030
20,138
17,785
9,298
7,913
3,492
1,426
1,183
870
555
396
300
1,790,398

Cumulative
Price
0.35396
0.38223
0.41904
0.44153
0.45609
0.46836
0.63676
0.87492
0.89434
0.89893
0.91076
0.96637
0.99337
0.99775
0.99796
1.00000

Cumulative
Quantity
0.81421
0.88749
0.93083
0.94895
0.96461
0.97586
0.98579
0.99098
0.99540
0.99735
0.99815
0.99881
0.99930
0.99961
0.99983
1.00000

Class
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study

569

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

According to findings of Table 1, among 16 purchase items merely the first purchase item (Steel Sheet) is put in A category. That is due
to this fact that it includes nearly 80 percent of purchase cost. Moreover including 7 percent of purchase items, item 2, 3 and 4 dedicate 15
percent of purchase cost, and are categorized in group B. At last, the remained 55 percent purchase items are put in group C that
contains 5 percent of shopping cost.
Fourth step Recognizing suppliers evaluation criteria
Reviewing research literature and having a meeting with team members, resulted in determining significant criteria in selecting supplier
related to studied industry. In present study, compatible with environment criteria are considered potentially in suppliers evaluation. At
last 11 criteria have been chosen as the most vital ones in evaluating suppliers in green supply chain of Asia Pishro Diesel Company:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Considered innovation in controlling pollution

Using the materials and technology, compatible with environment in production.
Taking part in green projects.
The quality of represented services.
Ensuring on time order delivery.
Environmental certificates.
Cooperating with green organizations.
Benefit making and financial status.
Flexibility in demand changes.
Examining and Evaluating products life cycle.
Training staff.

Fifth step Screening evaluation criteria

In order to examine evaluation criteria more precisely and also have an easier process for potential supplier selection, evaluation criteria
will be screened. Therefore, a questionnaire was distributed among 15 members of the team, asking them to express their opinions about
evaluation criteria importance (Table 2) in forms of extremely much, much, average, little, and extremely little.
Table 2. Evaluating supplier selection criteria by decision-making team

Decision-Makers

Criteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D 10

D 11

D 12

D 13

D 14

D 15

VH
VH
M
VH
H
H
H
M
VH
VH
M

H
VH
VH
H
VH
H
H
VL
L
VH
VH

H
H
L
H
M
VH
H
M
M
H
L

L
VH
L
H
M
VH
H
M
M
H
L

H
H
VL
VH
VH
VL
VL
VH
VH
VL
H

VH
VH
H
VH
VH
H
M
H
M
M
H

H
L
M
VH
VH
M
H
H
M
M
H

VH
M
H
VH
VH
H
M
H
M
M
H

VH
H
H
VH
L
L
L
H
H
M
VH

M
VH
H
H
H
L
M
L
M
M
H

M
H
H
VH
H
M
H
VH
M
M
H

M
VH
M
L
H
M
H
M
VL
VL
VH

L
L
M
VH
H
L
H
M
L
M
H

H
VL
L
M
M
M
VL
M
M
L
M

H
H
M
L
M
L
M
L
L
M
VH

After converting all verbal numbers of suppliers evaluation for each criterion, the relative importance of evaluation criteria will be
determined through finding fuzzy average of decision makers ideas (Table 3). Here criteria will be selected as the final ones that are
superior to others.
Thus, as Table 3 suggests, criteria of innovation in controlling pollution (C1), using green technology and material (C2), quality (C4), ontime order delivery (C5), and training staff (C11), are superior to other ones. These criteria are screened among others to be evaluated
precisely and used for suppliers evaluation process.
Sixth step Recognizing potential suppliers
In this step, the new or present potential suppliers are recognized for providing needed items. Indeed, their number might be a lot.
Therefore, the companys manager need to screen them to pick the most qualified one. Due to this fact that sheet is the only item related to
group A, this research evaluates the suppliers of this product. According to the results, found from Asia Pishro Diesel Co, the main sheet
suppliers are Mobarake Steel Company, Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company and Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company.

Malihe Dehghani et al.

570

Int ernational Journal of Ec onomy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sc iences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

Table 3. Transforming linguistic variables to fuzzy numbers for whole evaluation criteria

Row
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Final fuzzy
number
5.60 7.60 9.07
5.53 7.40 8.60
3.73 5.60 7.47
6.20 8.20 9.13
5.53 7.53 8.87
3.47 5.33 7.33
4.07 5.80 7.80
4.00 5.87 7.60
3.27 5.13 6.87
3.53 5.27 6.93
5.47 7.40 8.93

Evaluation Criteria
Pollution control initiatives
The use of green technology & materials
Participation in green projects
Quality of Service
Delivery
Environmental certification
Cooperating with green organization
The profitability and financial position
Flexibility in the demand changes
Product life cycle assessment
Employee training
Total

Crisp
number
7.42
7.18
5.60
7.84
7.31
5.38
5.89
5.82
5.09
5.24
7.27

Importance
weight
0.1060
0.1025
0.0799
0.1120
0.1044
0.0768
0.0841
0.0831
0.0727
0.0749
0.1037

67.13

Seventh step Evaluating suppliers

After clarifying 5 criteria, it is time to form a super matrix considered in network analysis process method. The reason is to examine the
relationships between goal and criteria, criteria together, criteria with alternatives and alternatives with criteria. Pair comparison is done
through a survey asking decision-making team in format of verbal variables. Represented responses are converted to absolute numbers by
team and will be evaluated in super matrix. Decision making hierarchy is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. A view of the decision-making hierarchy

The relationship between criteria and the goal

Table 4 indicates the relationship between problem goal and criteria, done by evaluation team. The verbal variables employed in this
section include (E) equal importance, (MH) almost more, (H) more and (VH) a lot more. After asking team members ideas, verbal
variables convert to fuzzy numbers. Evaluation result and weight of criteria importance are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. The relationship between the goal and criteria with fuzzy numbers
Evaluation Criteria

Employee training

Quality of service

Delivery

Pollution Control

Green Technology & Materials

Importance Weights

Employee training

(1.5,2,2.5)

(1,1.5,2)

(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(0.4,0.5,0.66)

0.223

Quality of service

(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(2,2.5,3)

(1.5,2,2.5)

(1.5,2,2.5)

0.284

Delivery

(0.5,1,1.5)

(0.33,0.4,0.5)

(0.66,1,2)

(0.33,0.4,0.5)

0.042

Pollution Control

(1.5,2,2.5)

(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(0.5,1,1.5)

(2,2.5,3)

0.242

Green Technology & Materials

(1.5,2,2.5)

(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(2,2.5,3)

(0.33,0.4,0.5)

0.209

The relationship between criteria

In this section, relative importance weights of criteria against each other are calculated. To state it differently, each time, relative
importance of all criteria is calculated for each particular criterion. Tables 5-9 manifest the result of evaluation and relative importance
weights.

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study

571

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

Table 5. The relationship between evaluation criteria toward Employee training

Evaluation Criteria

Quality of service

Delivery

Pollution Control

Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.66,1,2)
(0.66,1,2)

(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.5,1,1.5

Green Technology &

Materials
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.66,1,2)
-

Importance
Weights
0.3817
0.1996
0.2180
0.2007

Table 6. The relationship between evaluation criteria toward Quality of service

Employee
training
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.66,1,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)

Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

Delivery

Pollution Control

(0.66,1,2)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

(0.5,1,1.5)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Green Technology &

Materials
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(1,1.5,2)
(1,1.5,2)
-

Importance
Weights
0.2060
0.3133
0.2350
0.2457

Table 7. The relationship between evaluation criteria toward Delivery

Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

Employee
training
(2,2.5,3)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Quality of service

Pollution Control

(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(1.5,2,2.5)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.5,1,1.5)

Green Technology &

Materials
(1,1.5,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.66,1,2)
-

Importance
Weights
0.2957
0.5666
0.0778
0.0599

Table 8. The relationship between evaluation criteria toward Pollution control initiatives
Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Green Technology & Materials

Employee
training
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.66,1,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)

Quality of service

Delivery

(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(1,1.5,2)

(0.5,1,1.5)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(2,2.5,3)

Green Technology &

Materials
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
-

Importance
Weights
0.1553
0.2612
0.1058
0.4777

Table 9. The relationship between evaluation criteria toward The use of green technology & materials
Evaluation Criteria

Employee training

Quality of service

Delivery

Pollution Control

Importance Weights

Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control

(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.66,1,2)
(2,2.5,3)

(1,1.5,2)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)

(0.5,1,1.5)
(2,2.5,3)
(2,2.5,3)

(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
-

0.1682
0.3733
0.0598
0.3987

The relationship between criteria and alternatives

In this part, the performance of three main suppliers of the company is highlighted. These are fulfilled through pair comparison of
companies and regarding criteria individually. Tables 10-14 manifest the result of evaluation and relative importance weights.

Table 10. The relationship between evaluation criteria and alternatives toward Employee training
Evaluation Criteria
Mobarake Steel Company
Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company

Mobarake Steel
Company
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr

Company
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1,1.5,2)

Kavosh Gharn Mobin

Company
(1,1.5,2)
(0.5,0.66,1)
-

Importance
Weights
0.5995
0.0572
0.3433

Table 11. The relationship between evaluation criteria and alternatives toward Quality of service
Evaluation Criteria
Mobarake Steel Company
Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company

Mobarake Steel
Company
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr

Company
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)

Kavosh Gharn Mobin

Company
(1,1.5,2)
(2,2.5,3)
-

Importance
Weights
0.5303
0.4479
0.0218

Malihe Dehghani et al.

572

Int ernational Journal of Ec onomy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sc iences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

Table 12. The relationship between evaluation criteria and alternatives toward Delivery
Evaluation Criteria
Mobarake Steel Company
Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company

Mobarake Steel
Company
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr

Company
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Kavosh Gharn Mobin

Company
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1,1.5,2)
-

Importance
Weights
0.4154
0.5128
0.0718

Table 13. The relationship between evaluation criteria and alternatives toward Pollution control initiatives
Evaluation Criteria
Mobarake Steel Company
Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company

Mobarake Steel
Company
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(2,2.5,3)

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr

Company
(2,2.5,3)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)

Kavosh Gharn Mobin

Company
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(2,2.5,3)
-

Importance
Weights
0.3333
0.3333
0.3334

Table 14. The relationship between evaluation criteria and alternatives toward The use of green technology & materials
Evaluation Criteria
Mobarake Steel Company
Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company

Mobarake Steel
Company
(0.66,1,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr

Company
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.66,1,2)

Kavosh Gharn Mobin

Company
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,1,1.5)
-

Importance
Weights
0.2375
0.3352
0.4273

The relationship between alternatives and criteria

In this part, the importance of evaluation criteria among three main suppliers is surveyed. This is obtained through pair comparison of
companies and regarding criteria individually. Tables 15-17 show the results of these comparisons.

Table 15. The relationship between alternatives and evaluation criteria toward Mobarake Steel Company
Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

Employee
training
(1,1.5,2)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(0.66,1,2)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Quality of
service
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.66,1,2)

Delivery
(2,2.5,3)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(2,2.5,3)
(1.5,2,2.5)

Pollution
Control
(0.5,1,1.5)
(1,1.5,2)
(0.33,0.4,0.5)
(0.66,1,2)

Green Technology &

Materials
(1,1.5,2)
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,1,1.5)
-

Importance
Weights
0.2492
0.2625
0.0347
0.2342
0.2214

Table 16. The relationship between alternatives and evaluation criteria toward Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Company
Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

Employee
training
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(1,1.5,2)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)

Quality of
service
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1,1.5,2)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Delivery
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.66,1,2)

Pollution
Control
(1,1.5,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1,1.5,2)

Green Technology &

Materials
(1.5,2,2.5)
(1,1.5,2)
(1,1.5,2)
(0.66,1,2)
-

Importance
Weights
0.2644
0.2062
0.2591
0.1194
0.1509

Table 17. The relationship between alternatives and evaluation criteria toward Kavosh Gharn Mobin Company
Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green Technology & Materials

Employee
training
(0.66,1,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)
(0.66,1,2)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Quality of
service
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.5,1,1.5)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.66,1,2)

Delivery
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
(0.66,1,2)
(0.5,0.66,1)
(0.5,0.66,1)

Pollution
Control
(0.5,1,1.5)
(1,1.5,2)
(1,1.5,2)
(1.5,2,2.5)

Green Technology &

Materials
(1,1.5,2)
(0.5,1,1.5)
(1,1.5,2)
(0.4,0.5,0.66)
-

Importance
Weights
0.1863
0.2137
0.2534
0.1440
0.2026

Forming super matrix

This matrix is formed after determining the relationship and interaction between goals and criteria, criteria together, criteria and alternatives
and finally alternatives and criteria. Table 18 shows matrix.

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study

573

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

Table 18. Final super matrix for Analytic Network Analysis (ANP)
Super Matrix

Goal

Goal
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution control
Green tech. &
materials
Mobarake steel
Alighapoo sephid
mehr
Kavosh gharn mobin

0.218
0.275
0.041
0.244

Employee
training
0
0.382
0.200
0.218

0.220

0.201

Quality of
service
0.207
0
0.317
0.227

0.296
0.567
0
0.523

Pollution
control
0.167
0.242
0.068
0

Green tech. &

materials
0.168
0.373
0.060
0.399

Mobarake
steel
0.251
0.263
0.030
0.232

Alighapoo
sephid mehr
0.264
0.209
0.259
0.119

Kavosh gharn
mobin
0.186
0.213
0.253
0.144

0.248

0.060

0.523

0.222

0.150

0.202

0.600

0.530

0.415

0.310

0.237

0.057

0.448

0.513

0.393

0.355

0.343

0.022

0.072

0.297

0.427

Delivery

Eighth step determining superior importance weights of suppliers

The matrix, formed by decision- making teams ideas is solved by using network analysis process method. The answer will be the final
importance of criteria and suppliers (Table 19).
Table 19. Final solutions using ANP
Importance
weights
0.0944
0.1208
0.0717
0.0860
0.0941

Evaluation Criteria
Employee training
Quality of service
Delivery
Pollution Control
Green tech. & materials
Total

Relative
weights
0.2023
0.2586
0.1535
0.1841
0.2015

Importance
weights
0.0997
0.0808
0.0529

Suppliers
Mobarake steel
Alighapoo sephid mehr
Kavosh gharn mobin

0.4670

Total

Relative
weights
0.427
0.346
0.237

0.2334

As indicated by final evaluation of criteria and alternatives (Table 19) service quality has the highest relative importance. Training and
using green technology take the 2nd and 3rd place respectively. Moreover, Mobarakeh Steel Company is known as the best steel sheet
supplier.
Ninth step Dedication of purchase orders
Now dedication of optimum order to suppliers is done by considering relative importance weights of suppliers and also using a
mathematical planning model. Table 20 shows the related data.

Table 20. Parameters of the multi-objective programming model

Suppliers

Importance Weight

Price

Mobarake steel
Alighapoo sephid mehr
Kavosh gharn mobin

0.4270
0.3461
0.2269

18900
18800
18850

Normalized
price
0.334
0.332
0.333

Capacity

Demand

12000
20000
15000

20000

Thus, multi-objective liner plan modeling in selecting suppliers will be as follows:

MaxZ1 0.4270x1 0.3461x2 0.2269x3

MaxZ 2 0.334 x1 0.332 x2 0.333x3
S .t.
x1 x2 x3 20000

x1 12000
x2 15000
x3 15000
x1 x2 x3 0, int

(5)

Malihe Dehghani et al.

574

Int ernational Journal of Ec onomy, Mana ge me nt and Soci al Sc iences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

In which, model goal function are maximizing total purchase score and minimizing total purchase cost, respectively. The limitations of the
model also include fulfilling all needs of planned duration and observing the capacity of suppliers in a way that the amount or number of
purchased item from each supplier is not more than its production capacity.
First the problem needs to be figured out by considering each goal and objective individually. Then Comprehensive Criterion Method
(CCM) is employed to merge the goals and generally final goal. Table 21 shows the results with two problem goals individually.
Table 21. Obtained results of solving objective functions separately
First objective function
Suppliers
Mobarake steel
Alighapoo sephid mehr

Order
quantity
12000

Second objective function

Objective function
value

Suppliers

Order
quantity

Objective function
value

Mobarake steel

8000

Kavosh gharn mobin

Alighapoo sephid mehr

5000

Kavosh gharn mobin

15000

First objective function

7892.8

First objective function

6326

Second objective function

6656

Second objective function

6630

Examining the results and considering goal functions individually lead to proving this point that the results are in conflict to some extent.
By considering the first goal, most purchase orders dedicate to Mobarakeh steel Co, while nothing is dedicated to Kavosh Gharn Mobin
Company On the other side of the coin, the results of solving the second function indicate that most purchase orders belong to Kavosh
Gharn Mobin Company not to Mobarakeh steel Company The final answer comprises both functions. Hence using comprehensive criterion
method will make a unified goal function replace these two functions to solve the problem.

7892.8 Z1 Z 2 6630
Minz

7892.8 6630

(6)

The final result will be as Table 22:

Table 22. Final results

Suppliers

Order

Function Value

Mobarakeh steel Co.

Alighapoo Sephid Mehr Co.
Kavosh Gharn Mobin Co.

12000
8000

0.0039

As it is obvious, the final result as the same as the result of first function, indicating that the weigh effect of first function is more than the
effect of the second one.

6.

Conclusions

Regarding how to contact suppliers, its worth noting that firstly suppliers with proper functioning can be worthy and effective for the
company, in a way that success of the company is dependent on optimum contact with suppliers. That explains why companies need to
change their attitudes about suppliers, from a rival to a cooperator and also try to have a good interaction with them. Indeed, the
management of ideal interaction with partners require some revenues paying this cost doesnt s seem reasonable for all suppliers. In fact,
companies are required to focus on suppliers of strategic items among others. These interaction needs to be long and close.
Meanwhile, by taking various criteria such as price, quality, on-time delivery and etc into account, nowadays criteria dealing with
compatibility with environment has won the great attention. Paying attention to green supply chain is available in 2 forms. Due to
increasing pollution and its following dangers, environment supporters encourage companies to consider the criteria dealing with
compatibility with environment. Likewise, governments pressures to companies about this issue intensify its importance. Since the
performance of supplier in vital dimensions of production and transportation deals directly with environmental compatibility, highlighting
these green criteria seems very crucial.

Employing Fuzzy ANP for Green Supplier Selection and Order Allocations: A Case Study

575

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(8) Au gust 2013

The following issue mirrors some advantages of using this model by companies:

Decreasing purchase risk and maximizing total purchase value through identifying nature of purchase items.
Adopting proper interaction strategies, matched with performance of very important goods suppliers.
Considering the relationship between evaluate criteria.
Considering the criteria compatible with environment in selection process of suppliers.
Dedication purchase ordered by considering suppliers performance.

About limitations of the research, these points can be stated:

1.
2.
3.

The presents study tries to examine the issue of supplier selection and order dedication just on one planning horizon.
Due to limitation of investigation, merely suppliers of strategic items (items of group A) are analyzed.
Dedication of purchase orders in this research is done just by considering suppliers capacity, demand amount and also supplier
performance. Also it is possible for all other criteria including discounts in total purchases or reliability and also transportation
cost may be important too.

Some suggestion has been expressed to develop this research:

1.
2.
3.

Due to this fact that item providing process is a continual and ceaseless process, it is suggested that the introduced approach be
developed during some periods.
It is offered that researchers consider all purchase items, since there might be some suppliers that are able to supply some items,
causing saving in transporting.
Dedicating purchase orders is suggested through considering all other suitable criteria.

References
Arabzad, S.M., Kamali, A., Naji, B. and Ghorbani, M. (2013). DEA and TOPSIS techniques for purchasing management: the case of aircraft manufacturing
industry. Int. J. Logistics Systems and Management, 14(2), 242-260.
Arabzad, S.M, Razmi, J. and Ghorbani, M. (2011). Classify Purchasing Items Based on Risk and Profitability Attributes; using MCDM and FMEA
Techniques. Research Journal of International Studies, 21(1), 80-85.
Bayazit, O. (2006). Use of analytic network process in vendor selection decisions. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13, 566579.
Carrera, D. A., & Mayorga, R. V. (2008). Supply chain management:A modular fuzzy inference system approach in supplier selection for new product
development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19, 112.
Demirtas, E. A., & stn, . (2008). An integrated multi objective decision making process for supplier selection and order allocation. Omega: The
International Journal of Management Science, 36, 7690.
Gencer, C., & Grpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31,
24752486.
Ghorbani, M., Arabzad, S.M. Bahrami, M. (2012). Implementing Shannon Entropy, SWOT and Mathematical Programming for Supplier Selection and
Order Allocation, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 1(1), 43-47.
Jain, V., Tiwari, M. K., & Chan, F. T. S. (2004). Evaluation of the supplier performance using an evolutionary fuzzy-based approach. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management: Special Issue on Logistics and Supply Chain Management with Artificial Intelligence Techniques- Part
1, 15(8), 735744.
Lee, A. H. I., Chen, H. H., & Tong, Y. (2008). Developing new products in a network with efficiency and innovation. International Journal of Production
Research, 46(17), 46874707.
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H.-Y., Yang, C. Y., Lin, C. Y. (2009). An evaluation framework for product planning using FANP, QFD and multi-choice goal
programming. International Journal of Production Research, 48(13), 39773997.
Meade, L. M., Liles, D., & Sarkis, J. (1997). Justifying strategic alliances and partnering: A prerequisite for virtual enterprising. Omega: The International
Journal of Management Science, 25, 2942.
Michaels, R., Kumar, A., Samu, S., 1995. Activity-specific role stress in purchasing. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 31 (1),
1119.
nt, S., Kara, S. S., & Isik, E. (2009). Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication
company. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 38873895
Patton, W.E., 1997. Individual and joint decision making in industrial vendor selection. Journal of Business Research 38, 115122.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2002). A model for strategic supplier selection. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38, 1828.
Shyur, H. J., & Shih, H. S. (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44, 749761.
stn, O., & Demirtas, E. A. (2008). An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection. Omega: The
International Journal of Management Science, 36, 509521.
stn, O., & Demirtas, E. A. (2008). Multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection using achievement scalarizing functions. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 54(4), 918931.
Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C., 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research 50 (1), 218.
Wu, W. Y., Sukoco, B. M., Li, C. Y., & Chen, S. H. (2009). An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for supplier selection with bundling
problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 23272337.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338353.