Presented at the 3rd International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Scientific Studies (Engineering and Natural Sciences) (ISAS2019-ENS), Ankara, Turkey, Apr 19, 2019

SETSCI Conference Proceedings, 2019, 4, Page (s): 26-30 , https://doi.org/

Published Date: 01 June 2019    | 749     8

Supplier selection and measurement of supplier performance are multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problems and have a strategic importance for all industries. Supplier performance measures is a tool to determine whether suppliers are doing their job as expected. The importance of supplier performance measurement should not be underestimated. Supplier evaluation is a complex multiple criteria decision-making problem which is affected by several conflicting factors. Because of this, measurement of supplier performance is becoming increasingly important and critical. The purpose of this paper is investigate the MCDM methods in order to check how performance of suppliers are being measured with using MCDM methods. Evaluating supplier performance, derive the importance of the main criteria and sub-criteria applied in decision-matrix to sort the suppliers according to the measurement of supplier performance criteria.

Keywords - Supplier Selection, Multi, Decision Making, Supplier Evaluation , Analytical Hierarchy Process, Optimization

1. Aragon_es-Beltr_an P, Mendoza-Roca JA, Bes-Pi_a A, et al. 2009. Application of multi criteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical–chemical treatment of textile wastewater. J Hazard Mater 164(1):288–95.

2. Azadnia A.H., Samana M.Z.M., Wonga K.Y., Ghadimib P., Zakuanc N., 2012. Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on Selforganizing Map Neural network and Multi Criteria Decision Making approaches. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 879 – 884.

3. Dey P.K., Bhattacharya A., Ho W., Clegg B., 2015. Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organization. Int. J. Production Economics 166, 192–214.

4. “Faostat,” from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/

5. Gul M and Guneri AF. 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for aluminum industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:89–100

6. Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, et al. 2016. A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89

7. Guneri AF, Gul M, and Ozgurler S. 2015. A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment

8. Liou J.J.H., Chuang Y.C., Tzeng G.H., 2014. A fuzzy integralbased model for supplier evaluation and improvement. Information Sciences 266, 199–217.

9. Luthra S., Govindan K., Kannan D., Mangla S.K., Garg C.P., 2017. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 140, 1686-1698.

10. Ozdemir, Y., Basligil, H., & Ak, M. F. (2016). Airport Safety Risk Evaluation Based On Fuzzy Anp And Fuzzy Ahp. Uncertainty Modelling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making.

11. Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26 Tzeng GH and Huang JJ. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

12. Stavrou, D. I., Ventikos, N. P., & Siskos, Y. (2016). Locating Shipto-Ship (STS) Transfer Operations via Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): A Case Study. Multiple Criteria Decision Making,137-163

13. Yekta, T.S., Khazaei, M., Nabizadeh, R., Mahvi, A. H., Nasseri, S., Yari, A.R. (2015), Hierarchical distance-based fuzzy approach to evaluate urban water supply systems in a semi-arid region, Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering: 13(53): 1-12.

14. Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its Application to Approximate Reasoning-I. Information sciences: 8: 199-249. Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2018). A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 653-664.