Vol. 9 No. 4 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

An integrated fuzzy dematel and anp method to determine importance weights of supply chain performance criteria: Cable industry application

Haluk Gökşen
Dr., Türk Telekom, Ankara, Türkiye

Published 2021-12-25

How to Cite

Gökşen, H. (2021). An integrated fuzzy dematel and anp method to determine importance weights of supply chain performance criteria: Cable industry application. Business &Amp; Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(4), 1399–1421. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i4.1907

Abstract

In today's intensely competitive environment, the cooperation between the elements that comprise the supply chain and the resultant performance of that supply chain is pivotal to the success of businesses and the attainment of competitive advantage. This study aims to determine the importance weights of the supply chain performance criteria in the cable industry, which plays a crucial role in our country's economy and the digitalization processes of the sectors. The 11th version of the SCOR Model was used to determine the performance criteria. In addition, the Fuzzy DEMATEL and Analytical Network Process methods were used to determine the relationship structure of the performance attributes & criteria and the importance levels of the standards, respectively. Through analysis, responsiveness was defined as the most related to others by the highest D+R value. Regarding importance weights of performance metrics, the perfect order fulfilment rate, total service cost and order fulfilment cycle time are the three most important criteria in terms of the importance weights of the performance criteria.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aksakal, E. ve Dağdeviren, M. (2010). ANP ve DEMATEL Yöntemleri ile Personel Seçimi Problemine Bütünleşik bir Yaklaşım. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 905-910.
  2. Albayrak, Ö. ve Erkayman, B. (2018). Bulanık Dematel ve Edas Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Sporcular İçin Akıllı Bileklik Seçimi. Ergonomi, 1(2), 92-102.
  3. Alsoboa, S.S. (2017). The Influence of Economic Value Added and Returnon Assets on Created Shareholders Value: A Comparative Study in Jordanian Public Industrial Firms. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(4), 1-15.
  4. Ar, İ. M. (2013). Trabzon İli İçin Kentsel Lojistik Stratejisi Seçimi: Birleştirilmiş SWOT Analizi-Analitik Ağ Süreci Yöntemi Uygulaması. II. Ulusal Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Kongresi, 16-18 Mayıs, Aksaray Üniversitesi, Aksaray.
  5. Ar, İ., Gökşen, H. ve Tuncer, M. (2015). Using Integrated DEMATEL-ANP-VIKOR Method for Supplier Selection in Cable Sector . Ege Academic Review, 15(2), 285-300.
  6. Aramyan, L., Oude Lansınk, A., Van Der Vorst, J.G.A.J. ve Van Kooten, O. (2007). Performance Measurement in Agri-Food Supply Chains: A Case Study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 304-315.
  7. Askarany, D., Yazdıfar, H. ve Askary, S. (2010). Supply Chain Management, Activity-Based Costing and Organisational Factors. International Journal of Production Economics, 127(2), 238–248.
  8. Awan, A.G., Siddique, K. ve Sarwar, G. (2014). The effect of Economic Value Added on stock return: Evidence from selected companies of Karachi stock exchange. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 5(23), 140-153.
  9. Bacher, A. (2004). Instrumente des Supply Chain Controlling. Gabler, Wiesbaden.
  10. Başkol, M. (2013). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi, T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 2889 Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayını No: 1846 Eskişehir.
  11. Baykaşoğlu, A., Kaplanoğlu, V., Durmuşoğlu, Z. ve Şahin, C. (2013). Integrating Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS Methods for Truck Selection. Expert Systems With Applications, 40(3), 899-907.
  12. Berrah, L. ve Cliville, V. (2007). Towards an Aggregation Performance Measurement System Model in A Supply Chain Context. Computers in Industry, 58(7), 709-719.
  13. Bhagwat, R. ve Sharma, M. K. (2007a). Performance Measurement of Supply Chain Management: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 53(1), 43-62.
  14. Bhagwat, R. ve Sharma, M. K. (2007b). Performance Measurement of Supply Chain Management Using the Analytical Hierachy Process. Production Planning and Control, 18(8), 666-680.
  15. Bhagwat, R., Chan, F. ve Sharma, M. K. (2008). Performance Measurement Model for Supply Chain Management in Smes’. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 2(4), 428- 445.
  16. Bhagwat, R. ve Sharma, M. K. (2009). An Application of the Integrated Ahp-Pgp Model For Performance Measurement of Supply Chain Management. Production Planning & Control, 20(8), 678–690.
  17. Bigliardi, B. ve Bottani, E. (2010). Performance Measurement in the Food Supply Chain: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. Facilities, 28(5/6), 249-260.
  18. Boz Eravcı, D. (2020). Kurumların Dijital Dönüşümü: Büyük Veri. Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi, 11(1) , 90-112.
  19. Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z. ve Liu, J. (2009). Improving Supply Chain Performance Management: A Systematic Approach to Analyzing Iterative Kpi Accomplishment. Decision Support System, 46(2), 512–521.
  20. Chan, F.T. S. ve Chan H.K. (2004). Development of the Supplier Selection Model- A Case Study in the Advanced Technology Industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 218(12), 1807-1824.
  21. Chan, F.T.S. ve Kumar, N. (2007). Global Supplier Development Considering Risk Factors Using Fuzzy Extended AHP-Based Approach. Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 35(4), 417-431.
  22. Chan, F. T. S. ve Qi, H.J. (2003). An Innovative Performance Measurement Method for Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8(3), 209-223.
  23. Christopher, M. ve Lee, H. (2004). Mitigating Supply Chain Risk through Improved Confidece Building The Resilient Supply Chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), 388-396.
  24. Drzymalski, J., Odrey, N. ve Wilson, G. (2010). Aggregating Performance Measures of A Multi-Echelon Supply Chain Using the Analytical Network and Analytical Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, Economics and Management, 2(3/4), 286-306.
  25. Duran, O. ve Afonso, P. S. L. P. (2020). An Activity Based Costing Decision Model for Life Cycle Economic Assessment in Spare Parts Logistic Management. International Journal of Production Economics, 222, 107499.
  26. Halim, Y.T., Eldeeb, M.S., Habib, E.E. ve Bassim, M.A. (2011). Supply Chain Performance Evaluation Through Eva in Hospitality Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1874931.
  27. Fox, M. (1997). Supply Chain Management System, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto
  28. Frederico, G.F., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, A. ve Kumar, V. (2020). Performance Measurement for Supply Chains in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Balanced Scorecard Approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 70(4), 789-807.
  29. Gencer, C. ve Gürpınar, D. (2007). Analytic Network Process in Supplier Selection: A Case Study in an Electronic Firm. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 31(11), 2475-2486.
  30. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., ve Tırtıroglu, E. (2001). Performance Measures and Metrics in a Supply Chain Environment. International Journal of Production and Operations Management, 21(1/2), 71-87.
  31. Haghighi, P.S., Moradi, M. ve Salahi, M. (2014). Supplier Segmentation Using Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations and Fuzzy Clustering. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 5, 76-82.
  32. Hassanpour M. (2021). Classification of Five Iranian Chemical Industries Based on Economic Value-Added. Central Asian Journal of Environmental Science and Technolgy Innovation, 2, 52-67.
  33. Jharkharia, S. ve Shankar, R. (2007). Selection of Logistics Service Provider: An Analytic Network Process(ANP) Approach. Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 35(3), 274-289.
  34. Jing-Rung, C.-C.T. (2008). A Decision Framework for Supplier Rating and Purchase Allocation: A Case in the Semiconductor Industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(3), 634-646.
  35. Kabloder, Kablo Sanayicileri Derneği (2020). Erişim Adresi: https://kabloder.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Kabloder-Brosur-Web-3.pdf, Erişim Tarihi : 20/07/2021.
  36. Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A. ve Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Method and Multi-Objective Programming Approach for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation in a Green Supply Chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355-367.
  37. Khaleie, S., Fasanghari, M. ve Tavassoli, E. (2012). Supplier Selection Using a Novel Intuitionist Fuzzy Clustering Approach. Applied Soft Computing, 12, 1741-1754.
  38. Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C. ve Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of Artificial Neural Network and MADA Methods for Green Supplier Selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1161-1170.
  39. Lai, K. H., Ngai, E.W.T. ve Cheng, T.C.E. (2002). Measures for Evaluating Supply Chain Performance in Transport Logistics. Transportation Research Part E, 38, 439-456.
  40. Lee, H. L. ve Billington, C. (1992). Managing Supply Chain Inventory: Pitfalls and Opportunaties. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 65-73.
  41. Liberatore, M. J. ve Nydick, R. L. (1997). Group Decision Making in Higher Education Using the Analytic Hierarcy Process. Research in Higher Education, 38(5), 593-614.
  42. Lima-Junior, F.R. ve Ribeiro, C.L.C. (2019). Predicting Supply Chain Performance Based on Scor® Metrics and Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks. International Journal of Production Economics, 212, 19–38.
  43. Lin, B., Collins, J. ve Su, R. K. (2001). Supply Chain Costing: An Activity-Based Perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management, 31(10), 702-713.
  44. Lin, C. T., Chen, C. B. ve Ting, Y. C. (2011). An ERP Model for Supplier Selection in Electronics Industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (3), 1760-1765.
  45. Lin, C.W., Chen, S.H. ve Tzeng, G.H. (2009). Constructing a Cognition Map of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Using the DEMATEL Method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 16, 5-19.
  46. Lin, C.-J., ve Wu, W.-W. (2008). A Causal Analytical Method For Group Decision-Making Under Fuzzy Environment, Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 205-213.
  47. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K. ve Garg, C.P. (2017). An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Evaluation in Supply Chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698.
  48. Marwah, A., Thakar, G. ve Gupta, R. (2014). Determinants of Supply Chain Performance in the Indian Manufacturing Organizations. Proposed Conceptual Model, 5(1), 14–27.
  49. Mentzer, J., Dewıtt, W., Keebler, J., Min, S., Nix, N., Smith, C. ve Zacharia, Z. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (2), 1-25.
  50. Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B. ve Trent, R. J. (2004). Purchasing and Supply Chain (with Infotrac) Hardcover, 3rd edition.
  51. Mohamadi, A., Mowla, D., Abbasi, A. ve Askarifar, K. (2015). Using Thermodynamics Entropy to Modelling Economic Value Added Analysis of Manufacturing Firms (Iranian Chemical Industries Case Study). European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 4(1), 490-502.
  52. Neely, A., Gregory, M. ve Platts, K. (1995). Performance Measurement System Design: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80-116.
  53. Nekooie, M.A., Sheikhalishahi, M. ve Hosnavi, R. (2015). Supplier Selection Considering Strategic and Operational Risks:A Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Approach. Production Engineering: Research and Development, 9, 665-673.
  54. Ortiz-Barrios, M.A, Kucukaltan, B., Tinoco, D.C., Rodado, D.N. ve Jimenez, G. (2017). Strategic hybrid approach for selecting suppliers of high-density polyethylene. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(5-6), 296-316.
  55. Öz, E. ve Baykoç, Ö.F. (2004). Tedarikçi Seçimi Problemine Karar Teorisi Destekli Uzman Sistem Yaklaşımı. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 275-286.
  56. Paul, S.K. (2015). Supplier Selection for Managing Supply Risks in Supply Chain: A Fuzzy Approach. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 79, 657-664.
  57. Palma-Mendoza, J.A. (2014). Analytical Hierarchy Process and Scor Model to Support Supply Chain Re-Design. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 634–638.
  58. Reefke, H. ve Trocchi, M. (2013). Balanced Scorecard for Sustainable Supply Chains: Design and Development Guidelines. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(8), 805-826.
  59. Saad, S., Kunhu, N. ve Abdalah, M. (2016). A Fuzzy-AHP Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Procurement Process. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 23(1), 1-24.
  60. Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications.
  61. Saaty, T.L. ve Vargas, L.G. (2006). Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks, Springer Science, Business Media, LLC, New York, USA.
  62. Saaty, T.L. (2009). Applications of Analytic Network Process in Entertainment. Iranian Journal of Operations Research, 1(2), 41-55.
  63. Sarkar, A. ve Mohapatra, P.K.J. (2006). Evaluation of Supplier Capability and Performance: A Method for Supply Base Reduction. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(3), 148-163.
  64. Scc (2012). Supply Chain Council, Supply Chain Operations Reference Model Revision.
  65. Soni, G. ve Kodali, R. (2010). Internal Benchmarking for Assessment of Supply Chain Performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(1), 44-76.
  66. Tabriz, E. T. ve Alam, A. (2014). An Integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP-TOPSIS Methodology for Supplier Selection Proble. Global Journal of Management Studies and Researches, 1(2), 85-99.
  67. Tanyaş, M. (2009). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Süreç Olgunluk Düzeyi Belirleme: SCOR-SOS Yaklaşımı, VII. Uluslararası Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Kongresi, 06 Ekim, İstanbul.
  68. Thanaraksakul, W. ve Phruksaphanrat B. (2009). Supplier Evaluation Framework Based on Balanced Scorecard With Integrated Corporate Social Responsibility Perspective. Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 2.
  69. Theeranuphattana, A. ve John C.S.T. (2008). A Conceptual Model of Performance Measurement for Supply Chains Alternative Considerations, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(1), 125-148.
  70. Tseng, Y-J. ve Lin, Y-H. (2005). A Model for Supplier Selection and Tasks Assignment. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(2), 197-207.
  71. Tuzkaya, G., Önüt, S., Tuzkaya, U. ve Gülsün, B. (2008). An Analytic Network Process Approach for Locating Undesirable Facilities: An Example from İstanbul, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 970- 983.
  72. Van Hoek, R. (1998). Measuring The Unmeasurable – Measuring and Improving Performance in the Supply Chain. Supply Chain Management, 3(4), 187-192.
  73. Varma, S., Wadhwa, S. ve Deshmukh, S.G. (2008). Evaluating Petroleum Supply Chain Performance Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process to Balanced Scorecard. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(3), 343-356.
  74. Verdecho, M., Rodriguez R. ve Alfaro-Saiz, J. (2013). Assessing Supplier Sustainability Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Collaborative Systems for Reindustrialization, 408, 577-585.
  75. Wadhwa, V. ve Ravindran, AR. (2007). Vendor Selection in Outsourcing. Computers & Operations Research, 34(12), 3725-3737.
  76. Wang, J.W., Cheng, C.H. ve Huang, K.C. (2008). Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS for Supplier Selection. Applied Soft Computing, 9(1), 377-386.
  77. Watt, D.J., Kayis, B. ve Willey K. (2010). The Relative Importance of Tender Evaluation and Contractor Selection Criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 51-60.
  78. Wondergem, J. (2004). Supply Chain Reference Model Includes All Elements of Demand Satisfaction, Supply Chain Management: Global Briefing. Global Purchasing and Supply Chain Strategies, 27-30.
  79. Wong, W. P., Jaruphongsa, W., Lee, L. H. ve Wong, K. Y. (2007). A Preliminary Study On Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in Measuring Supply Chain Efficiency. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(2), 188-207.
  80. Wong, W.P. ve Wong, K.Y. (2007). Supply Chain Performance Measurement System Using DEA Modeling. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 361-381.
  81. Wong, W.P., Jaruphongsa, W. ve Lee, L.H. (2008). Supply Chain Performance Measurement System: A Monte Carlo DEA-Based Approach. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,3(2), 162-188.
  82. Wong, W.P. (2009). Performance Evaluation of Supply Chain in Stochastic Environment: Using A Simulation Based DEA Framework’. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1(2/3), 203-228.
  83. Wu, W.W. ve Lee Y.T. (2007). Developing Global Managers’ Competencies Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method. Expert Systems With Applications, 32, 499-507.
  84. Xia, W. ve Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier Selection with Multiple Criteria in Volume Discount Environments. Omega the International Journal of Management Science, 35(5), 494-504.
  85. Yang, J. (2009). Integrative Performance Evaluation for Supply Chain System Based on Logarithm Triangular Fuzzy Number- AHP Method. Kybernetes, 38(10), 1760-1770.
  86. Yörükoğlu, M. (2013). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Bilgi Sistemleri: Havacılık Yer Hizmetlerinde Uçuş Zamanlaması İçin Bilgi Paylaşım Modeli, Doktora Tezi, Hava Harp Okulu Havacılık ve Uzay Teknolojileri Enstitüsü.
  87. Yurdakul, M. ve İç, Y. T. (2001). AHP ve Hedef Programlama Yöntemlerinin Sağlayıcı Seçimi Probleminde Kullanılması. XXII. Ulusal YA/EM Kongresi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  88. Zanon, L. G., Munhoz A. R., Calache, L. D. D. R. ve Carpinetti L. C. R. (2020). A Decision Making Model Based on Fuzzy Inference to Predict the Impact of Scor® Indicators on Customer Perceived Value. International Journal of Production Economics, 223, 107520.