Evaluation and Ranking the Resilient Suppliers with the Combination of Decision Making Techniques

• Autorzy: Ajalli Mehdi , Saberifard Nima , Zinati Babak

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/mper.2021.137685

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Supply chain management emerged as the ultimate management strategy to ensure the competitive advantages of companies in their markets. Suppliers are considered as inevitable sources of external risks in modern supply chains. In this respect, resonance is essential for the ability to adapt in resonance to disturbances and to restore in choosing suppliers. As suppliers of critical resources are vulnerable, choosing better suppliers to create resilience, and thereby reducing the risks in the supply chain as a whole. In recent years, emphasis has been placed on supply chain resilience and resilient suppliers, but few studies have been conducted on the evaluation and selection of resilient suppliers with multi-criteria decision making models. The main purposes of this study are a broad review of the literature on the resilient factor, factorization, efficiency of key factors in the reliance of suppliers and the ranking of resilient suppliers using the combined approach of SWARA and WASPAS. For this purpose, after a comprehensive review of Literature interview with the experts of petrochemical upstream industry, six key factors and overall resilience of suppliers were identified in eighteen factors. Then the weight of the dimensions was determined by using the SWARA method. The output of the method showed that supplier accountability and key performance factors were the most important factors in assessing the resilience of suppliers. Using the supporting method, five resilient suppliers were evaluated based on six dimensions and the final ranking of suppliers was determined. With this ranking, the industry will be a major step towards improving supply chain and increasing suppliers’ resilience to address disruptions and risks, improve supply and achieve competitive advantage and satisfy the consumers’ needs.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

key dimension; resilience; supplier; SWARA technique; WASPAS method; ranking

• Wydawca: Production Engineering Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences ; Polish Association for Production Management
• Czasopismo: Management and Production Engineering Review
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 13, No. 3
• Strony: 129--140
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 78 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ajalli Mehdi

• Department of Management, University of Bu-Ali Sina, Hamedan, Iran

autor

Saberifard Nima

• slamic Azad University, Department of Industrial Management, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran

autor

Zinati Babak

• slamic Azad University, Department of Industrial Management, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran

Bibliografia

• Aghdaie, M.H., Hashemkhani, Z.S., Derakhti A., Zavadskas, E.K., and Morshed Varzandeh M.H. (2013). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; An application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating, Expert Syst. Appl., 40, 17, 7111–7121.
• Ajalli, M. and Mozaffari M.M. (2018). Appraisal the Key Factors of SCQM using a Combined Approach of SWARA-FISM, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7, 4, 13–21.
• Ajalli, M., Safari. H., and Mozaffari, M.M. (2021). Analyzing Key Dimensions of Suppliers Resilience Using a Combined Approach of Path Analysis and Fuzzy DEMATEL, Iranian Journal Trade Studies (IJTC) Quartery, 24, 96, 61–96.
• Awaysheh, A. and Klassen, R.D. (2010). The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 30, 12, 1246–1268.
• Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V., and Grilo, F. (2010). The influence of agile and resilient practices on supply chain performance: an innovative conceptual model proposal, in: Innovative processes and solutions in logistics and SCM: Emerging trends, concepts and technologies, Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, pp. 265–281.
• Barker, K. (2016). An Approach for Modeling Supplier Resilience, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium Thursday Sessions Volume II.
• Blackhurst, J., Craighead, C.W., Elkins, D., and Handfield, R.B. (2005). An empirically derived agenda of critical research issues for managing supply-chain disruptions, Int. J. Prod. Res., 43, 19, 4067–4081.
• Blome, C. and Schoenherr, T. (2011). Supply chain risk management in financial crisesda multiple case-study approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 134, 1, 43–57.
• Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J., and Ellram, L.M. (2011). Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives, Acad. Manag. J., 54, 4, 833–856.
• Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A., and Tumino, A. (2010). Do virtuality and complexity affect supply chain visibility?, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 127, 2, 372–383.
• Carvalho, H., Barroso, A.P., Machado, V.H., Azevedo, S., and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62, 1, 329–341.
• Chakraborty S. and Zavadskas E.K. (2014). Applications of WASPAS Method in Manufacturing Decision Making, Informatica, 25, 1, 1–20.
• Chan, S. and Larsen, G.N. (2010). A framework for supplier-supply chain risk management: tradespace factors to achieve risk reductiond. Return on investment, In: IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), pp. 29–34.
• Chiang, C., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012). An empirical investigation of the impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 1, 49–78.
• Chiou, T.Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F., and Chung, S.H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan, Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev., 47, 6, 822–836.
• Christopher, M., and Holweg, M. (2011). “Supply Chain 2.0”: Managing supply chains in the era of turbulence, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41, 1, 63–82.
• Chung, W., Talluri, S., and Narasimhan, R. (2010). Flexibility or cost saving? Sourcing decisions with two suppliers, Decision Science, 41, 3, 623–650.
• Clegg, B., Chandler, S., Binder, M., and Edwards, J. (2012). Governing inter-organisational R&D supplier collaborations: a study at Jaguar Land Rover, Prod. Plan. Control, 24, 8-9, 818–836.
• Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., and Handfield, R.B. (2011). Breakthrough scanning, supplier knowledge exchange and new product development performance, J. Prod. Innov. Manag., 28, 6, 930–942.
• Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2004). Using supplier networks to learn faster, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 45, 3, 57–63.
• Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., and Blome, C. (2010). Managing supplier sustainability risks in a dynamically changing environment. Sustainable supplier management in the chemical industry, J. Purch. Supply Manag., 16, 2, 118–130.
• Friedl, G. and Wagner, S.M. (2012). Supplier development or supplier switching?, Int. J. Prod. Res., 50, 11, 3066–3079.
• Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., and Ambursa, H.M. (2012). Sustainable supply chain management: a case study of British Aerospace (BAe) Systems, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 140, 1, 193–203.
• Gosling, J., Purvis, L., and Naim, M.M. (2010). Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 128, 1, 11–21.
• Ha, B.C., Park, Y.K., and Cho, S. (2011). Suppliers’ affective trust and trust in competency in buyers: its effect on collaboration and logistics efficiency, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 31, 1, 56–77.
• Ha, S.H. and Krishnan, R. (2008). A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance of a competitive supply chain, Expert Sys. with Appl., 34, 1303– 1311.
• Hartmann, E. and De Grahl, A. (2011). The flexibility of logistics service providers and its impact on customer loyalty: an empirical study, J. Supply Chain Manag., 47, 3, 63–85.
• Helper, S.R. and Sake, M. (2012). Supplier relations in Japan and the United States: are they converging?, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 36, 3, 77–85.
• Holmström, J., Ala-Risku, T., Auramo, J., Collin, J., Eloranta, E., and Salminen, A. (2010). Demand-supply chain representation: a tool for economic organizing of industrial services, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., 21, 3, 376–387.
• Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Chen, S.H., and Hu, A.H. (2011). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod., 56, 1, 164–172.
• Ivarsson, I., and Alvstam, C.G. (2011). Upgrading in global value-chains: a case study of technology-learning among IKEA-suppliers in China and Southeast Asia, J. Econ. Geogr., 11, 4, 731–752.
• Jafarnezhad Chaghooshi, A., Kazemi, A., and Arab, A. (2006). Identification and Prioritization of Supplier’s Resiliency Evaluation Criteria Based on BWM, J. Industrial Management Outlook, 6, 3, 159–186 (In Persian).
• Jahani (2006). Designing a Supply chain Anchoring Model with an SEM Approach, Industrial Management, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran (In Persian).
• Jayaram, J., Xu, K., and Nicolae, M. (2011). The direct and contingency effects of supplier coordination and customer coordination on quality and flexibility performance, Int. J. Prod. Res., 49, 1, 59–85.
• Kamal A.M. and Parast, M.M. (2016). A review of the literature on the principles of enterprise and supply chain resilience: Major findings and directions for future research, International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 116–133.
• Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E., and Moder, M. (2012). Supply risk management: model development and empirical analysis, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 42, 1, 60–82.
• Kloyer, M. and Scholderer, J. (2012). Effective incomplete contracts and milestones in market-distant R&D collaboration, Research Policy, 41, 2, 346–357.
• Kyu K.K., Yul Ryoo, S., and Dug Jung, M. (2011). Interorganizational information systems visibility in buyeresupplier relationships: the case of telecommunication equipment component manufacturing industry, Omega, 39, 6, 667–676.
• Lager, T. and Frishammar, J. (2010). Equipment supplier/user collaboration in the process industries: in search of enhanced operating performance, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., 21, 6, 698–720.
• Lavastre, O., Gunasekaran, A., and Spalanzani, A. (2012). Supply chain risk management in French companies, Decis. Support Syst., 52, 4, 828–838.
• Lee, A.H., Kang, H.Y., Hsu, C.F., and Hung, H.C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 4, 7917–7927.
• Li, C. (2013). Sourcing for supplier effort and competition: design of the supply base and pricing mechanism, Manag. Sci., 59, 6, 1389–1406.
• Liao, Y., Hong, P., and Rao, S.S. (2010). Supply management, supply flexibility and performance outcomes: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms, J. Supply Chain Manag., 46, 3, 6–22.
• Locke, R.M. and Romis, M. (2012). Improving work conditions in global supply chains, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 48.
• MacCrimon, K.R. (1968). Decision Making among Multiple Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach, Rand memorandum, RM-4823- ARPA.
• Mahapatra, S.K., Narasimhan, R., and Barbieri, P. (2010). Strategic interdependence, governance effectiveness and supplier performance: a dyadic case study investigation and theory development, J. Oper. Manag., 28, 6, 537–552.
• Martínez-Noya, A. and García-Canal, E. (2011). Technological capabilities and the decision to outsource/outsource offshore R&D services, Int. Bus. Rev., 20, 3, 264–277.
• Matook, S., Lasch, R., and Tamaschke, R. (2009). Supplier development with benchmarking as part of a comprehensive supplier risk management framework, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 29, 3, 241–267.
• Miller, D.W. and Starr, M.K. (1969). Executive Decisions and Operations Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
• Mohammed, A., Harris, I., Soroka, A., Mohamed, N., and Ramjaun, T. (2018). Evaluating Green and Resilient Supplier Performance: AHP-Fuzzy Topsis DecisionMaking Approach, ICORES 2018 – 7th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems.
• Park, J., Shin, K., Chang, T.W., and Park, J. (2010). An integrative framework for supplier relationship management, Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 110, 4, 495–515.
• Pettit, T.J., Fiksel, J., and Croxton, K.L. (2010). Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual framework, Journal of Business Logistics, 31, 1, 1–21.
• Pfohl, H.C., Köhler, H., and Thomas, D. (2010). State of the art in supply chain risk management research: empirical and conceptual findings and a roadmap for the implementation in practice, Logistics Research, 2, 1, 33–44.
• Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience, Int. J. Logist. Manag., 20, 1, 124–143.
• Punniyamoorthy, M., Mathiyalagan, P., and Parthiban, P. (2011). A strategic model using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection, Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 1, 458–474.
• Purvis, L., Spall, S., Naim, M. and Spiegler, V. (2016). Developing a resilient supply chain strategy during ‘boom’ and ‘bust’, Production Planning & Control, 27, 7–8, 579–590.
• Rajesh, R. and Ravi, V. (2015). Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: a grey relational analysis approach, Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 343–359.
• Roh, J., Hong, P., and Min, H. (2014). Implementation of a responsive supply chain strategy in global complexity: the case of manufacturing firms, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 147 (Part B), 198–210.
• Schiele, H., Veldman, J., and Hüttinger, L. (2011). Supplier innovativeness and supplier pricing: the role of preferred customer status, Int. J. Innov. Manag., 15, 1, 1–27.
• Soni, U., Jain, V., and Kumar, S. (2014). Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 74, 11–25.
• Spiegler, V.L., Naim, M.M., and Wikner, J. (2012). A control engineering approach to the assessment of supply chain resilience, International Journal of Production Research, 50, 21, 6162–6187.
• Squire, B., Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., and Brown, S. (2009). The effect of supplier manufacturing capabilities on buyer responsiveness: the role of collaboration, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 29, 8, 766–788.
• Staniunas, M., Medineckien˙e, M., Zavadskas, E.K., and Kalibatas, D. (2013). To modernize or not: ecologicaleconomical assessment ofmulti-dwelling houses modernization, Archives of Civil andMechanical Engineering, 13, 1, 88–98.
• Talib, F., Rahman, Z., and Qureshi, M.N. (2011). A study of total quality management and supply chain management practices, Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag., 60, 3, 268–288.
• Tang, O. and Musa, N.S. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 133, 1, 25–34.
• Tate, W.L., Dooley, K.J., and Ellram, L.M. (2011). Transaction cost and institutional drivers of supplier adoption of environmental practices, J. Bus. Logist., 32, 1, 6–16.
• Torres-Fuchslocher, C. (2010). Understanding the development of technologyintensive suppliers in resourcebased developing economies, Res. Policy, 39, 2, 268–277.
• Wagner, S.M. and Neshat, N. (2010). Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 126, 1, 121–129.
• Wang, W., Plante, R.D., and Tang, J. (2013). Minimum cost allocation of quality improvement targets under supplier process disruption, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228, 2, 388–396.
• Whipple, J.M. and Roh, J. (2010). Agency theory and quality fade in buyer-supplier relationships, Int. J. Logist. Manag., 21, 3, 338–352.
• Xie, G., Yue, W., Wang, S., and Lai, K.K. (2011). Quality investment and price decision in a risk-averse supply chain, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 214, 2, 403–410.
• Yeung, K., Lee, P.K., Yeung, A.C., and Cheng, T.C.E. (2013). Supplier partnership and cost performance: the moderating roles of specific investments and environmental uncertainty, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 144, 2, 546–559.
• Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., Šaparauskas, J., and Turskis, Z. (2013a). Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: peculiarities of ranking methodology, Procedia Engineering, 57, 107–112.
• Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J., Saparauskas, J., and Turskis, Z. (2013b). MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 47, 2, 5–20.
• Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation, Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 3, 2741–2751.
• Zhang, Y., Lindell, M.K., and Prater, C.S. (2009). Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters, Disasters, 33, 1, 38–57.
• Zolfani, S.H., Aghdaie, M.H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E.K., and Varzandeh, M.H.M. (2013). Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating, Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 17, 7111–7121.
• Zsidisin, G.A. and Wagner, S.M. (2010). Do perceptions become reality? The moderating role of supply chain resiliency on disruption occurrence, Journal of Business Logistics, 31, 2, 1–20.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023)