Designing effective contracts within the buyer-seller context: a DEMATEL and ANP study

This study examines the factors that contribute to effective contract design within the context of buyer-seller relationship. Research streams on contract factors, supply chain factors, environmental factors, and competitive factors were reviewed to arrive at 18 contract factors. A hybrid model of Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (ANP) analysed empirical data collected from 17 experts to weight the importance of contract factors. It was found that most important factors are, in order of significance: policies, supplier technology, force majeure, formality, relationship learning, buyer power, legal actions, liquidated damages, supplier power and partnership

Enhancing the cosmetics industry sustainability through a renewed sustainable supplier selection model

The cosmetics industry requires a long-term sustainable strategy to balance its continuously growing trend worldwide and its resources consumption. In this view, the suppliers' selection process is gaining more attention affecting products' overall sustainability. The objective of this contribution is hence to develop and validate the Cosmetics Sustainable Supplier Selection (C-SSS) model allowing the selection of sustainable suppliers for the cosmetic industry, evaluating them in an objective and balanced manner. The model was built relying on both scientific and grey literature, by incorporating the characteristics of existing SSS models usually used separately. The C-SSS enabled to integrate the EMM approach (to reduce the subjectivity), the ANP approach (to evaluate criteria interconnections), and the TOPSIS and ELECTRE models (to create a hybrid compensation model) to support managers in objectively selecting the most sustainable suppliers. The C-SSS model was applied and validated through an industrial use case in a cosmetics Italian company

Strategic hybrid approach for selecting suppliers of high-density polyethylene

Supplier selection is an important process for companies in the plastic sector due to its influence on firm performance and competitiveness. For a proper selection, a number of criteria from different aspects need to be considered by decision makers. Yet, as in different fields, because there are numerous criteria and alternatives to be considered in the plastic industry, choosing an appropriate multicriteria decision-making approach has become a critical step for selecting suppliers. Therefore, the aim of this research is to define the most suitable supplier of high-density polyethylene through the integration of powerful multicriteria decision-making methods. For this purpose, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is initially applied to define initial weights of factors and subfactors under uncertainty, followed by the use of decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to evaluate interrelations between the elements of the hierarchy. Then, after combining FAHP and DEMATEL to calculate the final contributions of both factors and subfactors on the basis of interdependence, the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution is used to assess the supplier alternatives. In addition, this paper also explores the differences between the judgments of decision makers for both AHP and DEMATEL methods. To do these, a case study is presented to demonstrate the validity of the proposed approach

Bibliometric analysis of scientific production on methods to aid decision making in the last 40 years

Purpose: Multicriteria methods have gained traction in both academia and industry practices for effective decision-making over the years. This bibliometric study aims to explore and provide an overview of research carried out on multicriteria methods, in its various aspects, over the past forty-four years. Design/Methodology/Approach: The Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases were searched for publications from January 1945 to April 29, 2021, on multicriteria methods in titles, abstracts, and keywords. The bibliographic data were analyzed using the R bibliometrix package. Findings: This bibliometric study asserts that 29,050 authors have produced 20,861 documents on the theme of multicriteria methods in 131 countries in the last forty-four years. Scientific production in this area grows at a rate of 13.88 per year. China is the leading country in publications with 14.14%; India with 10.76%; and Iran with 8.09%. Islamic Azad University leads others with 504 publications, followed by the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University with 456 and the National Institute of Technology with 336. As for journals, Expert Systems With Applications; Sustainability; and Journal of Cleaner Production are the leading journals, which account for more than 4.67% of all indexed literature. Furthermore, Zavadskas E. and Wang J have the highest publications in the multicriteria methods domain regarding the authors. Regarding the most commonly used multicriteria decision-making methods, AHP is the most favored approach among the ten countries with the most publications in this research area, followed by TOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE, and ANP. Practical implications: The bibliometric literature review method allows the researchers to explore the multicriteria research area more extensively than the traditional literature review method. It enables a large dataset of bibliographic records to be systematically analyzed through statistical measures, yielding informative insights. Originality/value: The usefulness of this bibliometric study is summed in presenting an overview of the topic of the multicriteria methods during the previous forty-four years, allowing other academics to use this research as a starting point for their research

A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains

[EN] Sustainability practice within supply chains remains in an early development phase. Enterprises still need tools that support the integration of sustainability strategy into their activity, and to align their sustainability strategy with the supplier selection process. This paper proposes a methodology using a multi-criteria technique to support supplier selection decisions by taking two groups of inputs that integrate sustainability performance: supply chain performance and supplier assessment criteria. With the proposed methodology, organisations will have a tool to select suppliers based on their development towards sustainability and on their alignment with the supply chain strategy towards sustainability. The methodology is applied to an agri-food supply chain to assess sustainability in the supplier selection process.The authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of Project GV/2017/065 'Development of a decision support tool for the management and improvement of sustainability in supply chains', funded by the Regional Valencian Government. Also, the authors acknowledge Project 691249, RUC-APS: Enhancing and implementing knowledge-based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain conditions for agriculture production systems (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union according to funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alarcón Valero, F.; Pérez Perales, D.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R. (2021). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 29:1231-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3S1231125129Agarwal G, Vijayvargy L (2012) Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive supply chains through analytical network process. In: Proceedings international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, Hong KongAgeron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182Akarte MM, Surendra NV, Ravi B, Rangaraj N (2001) Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 52:511–522Alfaro Saiz JJ, Rodríguez R, Ortiz Bas A, Verdecho MJ (2010) An information architecture for a performance management framework by collaborating SMEs. Comput Ind 61:676–685Alfaro JJ, Ortiz A, Rodríguez R (2007) Performance measurement system for enterprise networks. Int J Prod Perform Manag 56(4):305–334Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117Azadnia AH, Ghadimi P, Zameri M, Saman M, Wong KY, Heavey C (2013) An integrated approach for sustainable supplier selection using fuzzy logic and fuzzy AHP. Appl Mech Mater 315:206–221Azimifard A, Moosavirad SH, Ariafar S (2018) Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Pol 57:30–44Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124:252–264Bhagwat R, Sharma MK (2007) Performance measurement of supply chain management: a balanced scorecard approach. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):43–62Bititci US, Mendibil K, Martinez V, Albores P (2005) Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25(4):333–353Brewer PC, Speh TW (2000) Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. J Bus Logist 21(1):75–93Bullinger HJ, Kühner M, Hoof AV (2002) Analysing supply chain performance using a balanced measurement method. Int J Prod Res 40(15):3533–3543Chan FTS (2003) Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int J Prod Res 41(15):3549–3579De Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(2):75–89Degraeve Z, Labro E, Roodhooft F (2000) An evaluation of supplier selection methods from a total cost of ownership perspective. Eur J Oper Res 125(1):34–58Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J of Prod Econ 157(11):273–278Dou Y, Sarkis J (2010) A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for a strategic offshoring decision. Int J Prod Res 48(2):567–592Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141Falatoonitoosi E, Leman Z, Sorooshian S (2013) Modeling for green supply chain evaluation. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–9Farzad T, Rasid OM, Aidy A, Rosnah MY, Alireza E (2008) AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. JIEM 1(2):54–76Ferreira LMDF, Silva C, Garrido Azevedo S (2016) An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark Int J 23(6):1398–1422Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Env 11:269–284Folan P, Browne J (2005) Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system. Prod Plan Control 16(6):531–544Freeman J, Chen T (2015) Green supplier selection using an AHP-entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag 20:327–340Genovese A, Koh L, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212Glock CH, Grosse EH, Ries JM (2017) Decision support models for supplier development: systematic literature review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 194:246–260Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(1/2):71–87Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202:16–24Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264Hsu CW, Kuo TC, Chen SH, Hu AH (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172Huan SH, Sheoran SK, Wang G (2004) A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag Int J 9(9):23–29Hutchins M, Sutherland JH (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698Igarashi M, Boer L, Magerholm Fet A (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply Manag 19(4):247–263Jimenez-Jimenez D, Martínez-Costa M, Sanchez Rodriguez C (2019) The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J Knowl Manag 23(3):548–567Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Kumar Mangla S, Prakash Garg C (2017) An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140:1686–1698Maestrini V, Luzzini D, Maccarrone P, Caniato F (2017) Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 183A:299–315Masella C, Rangone A (2000) A contingent approach to the design of vendor selection systems for different types of co-operative customer/supplier relationships. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(1):70–84Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97Mohammed A, Harris I, Govindan K (2019) A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int J Prod Econ 217:171–184Motevali-Haghighi S, Torabi SA, Ghasemi R (2016) An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). J Clean Prod 137:579–597Nawaz W, Koç M (2018) Development of a systematic framework for sustainability management of organizations. J Clean Prod 171:1255–1274Nie X (2013) Green suppliers selecting based on analytic hierarchy process for biotechnology industry. In: Zhong Z (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on information engineering and applications. Springer, London, pp 253–260Nielsen IE, Banaeian N, Golińska P, Mobli H, Omid M (2014) Green supplier selection criteria: from a literature review to a flexible framework for determination of suitable criteria. In: Golinska P (ed) Logistics operations, supply chain management and sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 79–99Noci G (1997) Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 3(2):103–114Petersen KJ, Handfield RB, Ragatz GL (2005) Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J Oper Manag 23:371–388Pishchulov G, Trautrims A, Chesney T, Gold S, Schwab L (2019) The voting analytic hierarchy process revisited: a revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. Int J Prod Econ 211:166–179Popovic T, Kraslawski A, Barbosa-Póvoa A, Carvalho A (2017) Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. J Int Stud 10(4):9–36Qorri A, Mujki Z, Kraslawski A (2018) A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. J Clean Prod 189:570–584Reefke H, Trocchi M (2013) Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and development guidelines. Int J Prod Perform Manag 62(8):805–826Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkSaaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38(3–4):233–244Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710Shaik M, Abdul-Kader W (2011) Green supplier selection generic framework: a multi-attribute utility theory approach. Int J Sustain Eng 4(1):37–56Shi P, Yan B, Shi S, Ke C (2015) A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Inf Technol Manag 16(1):39–49Superdecisions (2018) Tutorial on hierarchical decision models. Creative Decisions Foundation. https://www.superdecisions.com/sd_resources/v28_man03.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018Thakkar J, Kanda A, Deshmukh S (2009) Supply chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmark Int J 16(5):702–723Theißen S, Spinler S (2014) Strategic analysis of manufacturer–supplier partnerships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):383–397Tseng ML, Lim M, Wong WP (2015) Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 115(3):436–461Uysal F (2012) An integrated model for sustainable performance measurement in supply chain. Proc Soc Behav Sci 62:689–694Valenzuela L, Maturana S (2016) Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agric Syst 142:112–121Verdecho MJ, Alfaro-Saiz JJ, Rodriguez-Rodriguez R, Ortiz-Bas A (2012) A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40:249–263Virender P, Jayant A (2014) A green supplier selection model for an agriculture-machinery industry. Int J Appl Eng Res 9(5):597–605Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18Xu L, Kumar DT, Madan Shankar K, Kannan D, Chen G (2013) Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):907–916Xu Z, Qin J, Liu J, Martínez L (2019) Sustainable supplier selection based on AHP Sort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 483:273–293Zaklad A, McKnight R, Kosansky A, Piermarini J (2004) The social side of the supply chain. Ind Eng 36(2):40–44Zhe S, Wong NT, Lee LH (2013) Using data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation with environmental considerations. In: International systems conference, OrlandoZimmer K, Fröhling M, Schultmann F (2016) Sustainable supplier management: a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int J Prod Res 54(5):1412–144

Intelligent Multi-Attribute Decision Making Applications: Decision Support Systems for Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Benchmarking

Efficiency has been and continues to be an important attribute of competitive business environments where limited resources exist. Owing to growing complexity of organizations and more broadly, to global economic growth, efficiency considerations are expected to remain a top priority for organizations. Continuous performance evaluations play a significant role in sustaining efficient and effective business processes. Consequently, the literature offers a wide range of performance evaluation methodologies to assess the operational efficiency of various industries. Majority of these models focus solely on quantitative criteria omitting qualitative data. However, a thorough performance measurement and benchmarking require consideration of all available information since accurately describing and defining complex systems require utilization of both data types. Most evaluation models also function under the unrealistic assumption of evaluation criteria being dependent on one another. Furthermore, majority of these methodologies tend to utilize discrete and contemporary information eliminating historical performance data from the model environment. These shortcomings hinder the reliability of evaluation outcomes leading to inadequate performance evaluations for many businesses. This problem gains more significance for business where performance evaluations are tied in to important decisions relating to business expansion, investment, promotion and compensation. The primary purpose of this research is to present a thorough, equitable and accurate evaluation framework for operations management while filling the existing gaps in the literature. Service industry offers a more suitable platform for this study since the industry tend to accommodate both qualitative and quantitative performance evaluation factors relatively with more ease compared to manufacturing due to the intensity of customer (consumer) interaction. Accordingly, a U.S. based food franchise company is utilized for data acquisition and as a case study to demonstrate the applications of the proposed models. Compatible with their multiple criteria nature, performance measurement, evaluation and benchmarking systems require heavy utilization of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) approaches which constitute the core of this research. In order to be able to accommodate the vagueness in decision making, fuzzy values are also utilized in all proposed models. In the first phase of the study, the main and sub-criteria in the evaluation are considered independently in a hierarchical order and contemporary data is utilized in a holistic approach combining three different multi-criteria decision making methods. The cross-efficiency approach is also introduced in this phase. Building on this approach, the second phase considered the influence of the main and sub-criteria over one another. That is, in the proposed models, the main and sub-criteria form a network with dependencies rather than having a hierarchical relationship. The decision making model is built to extract the influential weights for the evaluation criteria. Furthermore, Group Decision Making (GDM) is introduced to integrate different perspectives and preferences of multiple decision makers who are responsible for different functions in the organization with varying levels of impact on decisions. Finally, an artificial intelligence method is applied to utilize the historical data and to obtain the final performance ranking. Owing to large volumes of data emanating from digital sources, current literature offers a variety of artificial intelligence and machine learning methods for big data analytics applications. Comparing the results generated by the ANNs, three additional well-established methods, viz., Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), Least Squares Support Vector Machine (LSSVM) and Extreme Learning Machine (ELM), are also employed for the same problem. In order to test the prediction capability of these methods, the most influencing criteria are obtained from the data set via Pearson Correlation Analysis and grey relational analysis. Subsequently, the corresponding parameters in each method are optimized via Particle Swarm Optimization to improve the prediction accuracy. The accuracy of artificial intelligence and machine learning methods are heavily reliant on large volumes of data. Despite the fact that several businesses, especially business that utilize social media data or on-line real-time operational data, there are organizations which lack adequate amount of data required for their performance evaluations simply due to the nature of their business. Grey Modeling (GM) technique addresses this issue and provides higher forecasting accuracy in presence of uncertain and limited data. With this motivation, a traditional multi-variate grey model is applied to predict the performance scores. Improved grey models are also applied to compare the results. Finally, the integration of the fractional order accumulation along with the background value coefficient optimization are proposed to improve accuracy

Strategic Approach Model for Investigating the Cause of Maritime Accidents

It is commonly accepted that the majority of maritime causalities are caused by human factors/errors. The role of human factor in maritime accident and the possible reasons of this argument can be quantitatively evaluated based on expert knowledge and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology. To investigate what makes the first “human factor” in ship accidents, a hybrid approach was applied in this study. Two methods, the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and the analytical network process (ANP) were proposed to evaluate the importance level of the human factors in maritime casualties. Quantitative evaluations of the human errors in maritime operations can greatly improve the decision-making process and reduce potential risks. As a result of this study, the top three priorities in the evaluation systems were found as: ‘ability, skills, knowledge’ (8.94%), ‘physical condition’ (8.77%), ‘weather - sea conditions’ (8.21%) and the least important criterion was ‘cargo characteristics’ (2.21%).</p

Supplier evaluation and selection in fuzzy environments: a review of MADM approaches

In past years, the multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approaches have been extensively applied by researchers to the supplier evaluation and selection problem. Many of these studies were performed in an uncertain environment described by fuzzy sets. This study provides a review of applications of MADM approaches for evaluation and selection of suppliers in a fuzzy environment. To this aim, a total of 339 publications were examined, including papers in peer-reviewed journals and reputable conferences and also some book chapters over the period of 2001 to 2016. These publications were extracted from many online databases and classified in some categories and subcategories according to the MADM approaches, and then they were analysed based on the frequency of approaches, number of citations, year of publication, country of origin and publishing journals. The results of this study show that the AHP and TOPSIS methods are the most popular approaches. Moreover, China and Taiwan are the top countries in terms of number of publications and number of citations, respectively. The top three journals with highest number of publications were: Expert Systems with Applications, International Journal of Production Research and The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology