Page 1
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
13
DESIGNING VENDOR SELECTION FRAMEWORK USING FUZZY LOGIC
Sonu Verma1#
, Dr Kavita Chauhan1, Greeshma P Rao
2
1#Research Scholar, Centre for Management Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi.
1Associate Professor, Centre for Management Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi.
2 Post Graduate Student, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.
ABSTRACT
An industry’s success depends on product cost optimization and the above goal can be achieved only when the supplier
selection is error free and efficient. This problem of the supplier selection is multi-objective and involves both qualitative and
quantitative factors. The problem is made highly complex by these factors and their interdependencies. The issue of supplier
selection is found to be a fundamental operation in the supply chain.
A fuzzy expert decision support system has been developed, in this study, for the purpose of solving the multi-objective supplier
selection problem for automobile sector. To ensure relevance , considering only the sector specific factors and then simulating
these factors with the data derived from the field experts was adopted for the fuzzy based model. Furthermore, the validation of
the above developed model was done by TOPSIS and Industry’s perception of the suppliers.
Keywords: Supply chain Management; Fuzzy Logic; Automobile Sector; TOPSIS; Vendor Selection Framework.
Acknowledgement: This research work is a part of the thesis to be submitted by the corresponding author for Ph.D
degree awarded by the Centre for Management Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi
1.Introduction:
In today‗s accelerating world economy, where the advancements in technology and Internet channels have not limited the
access of businesses local boundaries, manufacturing companies are facing the market realities like shrinking the product
lifecycles and steep price erosion more than ever before .The customers are expecting different product specifications,
higher product quality at a lower product price and faster response. In an effort to cope with the above demands, the firms try
and work with the suppliers who can assure the best product quality, at reasonable cost and desired flexibility. This condition
drives them to continually cut costs, focus on core competencies (outsource some or all of their production), increase efforts to
improve the supply chain execution and to leverage the supply base which has become more critical to achieve a competitive
advantage through robust supplier selection process. The overall objective of the supplier selection process is to maximize
overall value to the manufacturer.
The cost of purchasing raw materials and component parts is significant in most manufacturing companies. Purchased
products and services account for more than 60% of an average organization‗s total costs. Accordingly, improvement in the
procurement process can help organization to increase their profits as well as the relationship quality with their suppliers which
can be deemed as one of the significant criteria in the evaluation of organizations‘ economic performance. Selection of the
suppliers is considered a critical process, cumbersome and lengthy process. In fact, supplier selection is purchasing‘s most
important responsibility. Later, Weber et al. (1991) made the same point by stating, ―In today‗s competitive operating
environment it is impossible to successfully produce low cost, high quality products without satisfactory supplier. Thus one of
the important purchasing decisions is the selection of suppliers. More recently, with emergence of the concept of supply chain
Page 2
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
14
management, more and more scholars and practitioners have realized that supplier selection was a vehicle that can be used to
increase the competitiveness of the entire supply. The selections of suppliers are strategic decisions to be made by an
organization with long-term or short term implications. These decisions are highly complex and the most difficult
responsibility of the organization and depends on a wide range of criteria such as price, quality, reliability, service, track record,
adequate financial resources and ability to comply with the delivery requirements etc. How an organization weighs up the
importance of these different criteria will be based on business‘ priorities, strategy and characteristic of organization. In this
study the major focus will be on supplier selection for auto industry. The objectives are two fold enumerated as follows:
1. To understand the criterion for vendor selection for automobile manufactures in India and develop a validated framework
for the same using fuzzy logic decision making methodology for a single product category.
2. To cross validate the fuzzy logic methodology with another popular method known asTOPSIS, and check if the final
results were consistent with the industry perception of the suppliers for a particular product.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows; Section 2 deals with a brief note on automotive industry in India, followed
by a summary of the literature on supplier selection issues and supplier selection criteria in Section 3. Session 4 sets the
theoretical framework for fuzzy logic. In the Section 5 methodology adopted is discussed. Section 6 deals with discussion of
results and section 7 concludes along with scope for future research.
2.Supply chain of automobile industries:
Many industrial branches such as iron & steel, light metals, petro-chemicals, glass, tires, etc, see a principal customer in the
automobile industry.Consequently, with its suppliers as well as the auxiliary sectors of marketing, distribution, services,
fuel, finance and insurance which supply automotive products/services to customers, the automobile industry creates a vast
business volume and employment together. The above factors are mainly the reasons that contribute to why it can be
considered as the flagship of the economy in all industrialized nations. The overall success in this industry is extremely
important to flourish, especially for developing countries.
Automotive Sector quality management system standards requires the organization to assess and select suppliers in view of
their capacity to supply item as per the organization‘s prerequisites and to set up criteria for choice, evaluation and re-
evaluation. The supplier determination process varies based upon the type of the items and services to be purchased. The
supplier choice procedure, for the most part, comprises of various stages some of which don't have any significant bearing
to basic buys. At every stage, the number of potential suppliers is whittled down to end with the choice of what is
considered to be the most reasonable to meet the prerequisites. Every organization should initially meet the purchase
request qualifiers. After that, the selection process goes ahead with assessing the potential suppliers against request
winner‘s criteria. For unique case buys occasional re-evaluation would not be fundamental. Where a contract between both
players (buyer and supplier) are made to supply items and services constantly till expiry, some method for re-evaluation is
essential as a shield against degrading quality standards. The re-evaluation might be based on supplier compliance to
requirements, length of supply, volume supplied, risks or changes in requirements and can be directed not withstanding any
item check that might be done.
3.Review of Literature
Supplier selection has attained the highest significance for the companies because of the increasing competition. Improper
selection of suppliers will have a poor impact on the overall performance of the manufacturer. In the past many models have been
proposed. These could be: categorical methods, data envelopment analysis, cluster analysis, case based reasoning systems,
linear weighting methods, total cost of ownership based models, mathematical programming models, artificial intelligence (AI)
based systems. These essentially focused the complex and unstructured nature of present day decisions. However many factors
are not taken into account and are rather standardized instead being industry specific making room for errors. There can be both
qualitative and quantitative objectives however the problem aggravates when there could be room for conflicting metrics. Past
works have also indicated that there could be two kinds of selection models. Compensatory and non-compensatory or scoring
system. The present study mainly focusses on the scoring model for evaluation. As stated before there needs to be the
consideration of both qualitative and quantitative variables in evaluating performance of the supplier based on the efficiency
and effectiveness of car anufacturers [1]. The first stage is mostly qualitative stage by utilizing weights to determine the
criterion importance and the second stage is quantitative which gives the supplier score. Assigning weights is important for
various criteria and these ratings of qualitative criteria are considered as linguistic variables. Because linguistic evaluations
merely approximate the subjective judgment of decision-makers, linear trapezoidal functions are considered to be adequate for
capturing the vagueness of these linguistic evaluations. These linguistic variables can be expressed in positive trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers. Linguistic ratings are used by the decision makers to evaluate importance of criterion and ratings of
alternatives with respect to qualitative criterion [2].
The key point is that generally these problems are multi-objective in nature [3]. However, researchers have pointed out that these
methods cannot be directly applied to assess a large number of alternatives, since they tend to generate inconsistencies. In view of
Page 3
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
15
this, this work has mainly tried to restrict the number of alternative parameters, by considering the most crucial through expert
validation [4].
In the past many studies have been carried out with improved fuzzy models. For instance the
TOPSIS which took linear trapezoidal models to convert qualitative linguistic criterion to quantitative score and according
weights to each criterion [2] as stated before. Importance of weights in a multi objective linear fuzzy logic model is seen to be
of great significance [3]. Also it is helpful categorizing supplier performance according to the item category so as to indicate
strengths and weaknesses of current suppliers, thus helping decision makers review supplier development action plans [5]. Thus
supplier frameworks and supplier categorization change along with the change in the items supplied in the automobile industry
where multiple suppliers are pooled in for multiple items (A, B and C classes). For the definition of criterion for selection of
suppliers many past papers have listed various metrics. For instance Dickson first identified 23 criterions. In many studies price
was determined to be the most important factor. Many authors identify multiple criterion. However four criterion have been
cited as the most popular for supplier selection criterion [6]. These further included many sub criterions. The four criterion
were supplier criteria, product performance criteria, service performance criteria, or cost criteria. Supplier criterion includes
aspects like financial, technical, quality systems and processes etc. product performance criterion includes aspects of usability
etc. service performance includes aspects of accessibility, timeliness, responsiveness, dependability, value add,
customer satisfaction etc. Of the many popular methods and approaches, this work choses to adapt a combination of criterion
and sub criterion and has also tried to incorporate normalized weighted multi criterion fuzzy logic approach to solve the vendor
selection problem [7]. A comprehensive list of selection factors has been stated in Table 1 after extensive literature survey.
1. Delivery a) Compliance with due date,
b) Fill rate,
c) Lead time,
d) Delivery Speed,
e) Delivery flexibility (change in delivery date,
special requests, meeting fluctuations in
demand),
f) Condition of product on arrival,
g) Accuracy in filling order,
h) Order cycle time,
i) Accuracy in billing and credit,
j) Reserve capacity,
k) Modes of transportation facility,
l) Delivery Personnel capabilities,
m) Safety and security components,
n) Packaging ability,
o) JIT
2. Quality a) Quality control rejection rate,
b) Customer rejection rate,
c) Product durability,
d) Product reliability,
e) Product performance,
3. Cost /price a) Purchase price,
b) Logistics cost,
c) Cost harness capability,
d) Payment terms
e) Quantity discount
f) Competitive pricing
Page 4
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
16
4. Service a) Reliability
b) Empathy(communication, access,
understanding)
c) Assurance (competence, courtesy, credibility
Responsiveness)
d) Ability and willingness to assist in design
process,
e) Post sales assistance and support,
f) After sales services (e.g., Warranties and
Claims policies), Training aids,
g) Payment procedures understanding,
h) Spare parts availability,
i) Handling of complaints,
j) Ability to maintain product/service
5. Product a) Product range,
b) New product availability,
c) Additional features
d) Product performance,
6. Technical capabilities a) Technical knowhow,
b) Performance history
c) Offering technical support,
d) Innovativeness,
e) R&D capability,
f) Future manufacturing capabilities,
g) Process
h) Manufacturing Capability,
i) Design capabilities
7. Organizational and
cultural factors
a) Globalization, procedural compliance
b) Compatibility of organizational cultures
c) Competitive pressure
d) Supplier strategic objective
e) Training and education Reputation and
position in the market,
f) Financial stability,
g) Geographic location and its political and
economic stability,
h) Quality performance accreditation,
i) Knowledge of the market,
j) Information systems,
k) Management capability,
l) Company assets,
m) Work safety and labor health,
n) Sustainability Environmental policies,
o) Top management support,
p) Supplier Integrity
8. Relationship factors
a) Trust and information sharing,
b) Ease of communication,
c) Long-term relationship,
d) Reciprocal arrangement,
e) Ability to identify needs,
f) Ability to maintain
g) Commercial relations,
h) Cooperation,
i) Supplier Willingness
Table 1: Selection factors for suppliers
Page 5
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
17
However all these factors are quite generic and are applicable to multiple industries. To make it rather specific this list is validated
by experts from the industry and specific factors are taken to make further analysis.
4.Theoretical Background
In this section we will discuss the fundamental frameworks underlying the two methodologies, called the fuzzy logic
method and the TOPSIS framework, which are used to score the suppliers.
Fuzzy logic
In a human body, the imprecise and incomplete sensory information provided by perceptive organs is interpreted by the
human brain. Pioneered by Lotfi A. Zadeh, the Fuzzy Set Theory is an appropriate tool to uncertainty, ambiguity, vagueness
and imprecision of the human cognitive processes. A systemic calculus is provided by this theory in order to linguistically
deal with such information and perform a numerical computation using the membership functions stipulated linguistic labels.
These are spcial rule-based systems which are using the fuzzy logic in their knowledge base to derive conclusions from user
inputs and fuzzy inference process. The knowledge base of the system is made up by the functions [8]. ―Fuzzy if-then‖ rule, in
other words, is an ―if-then‖ rule in which a few terms are given with continuous functions. When selected properly, Fuzzy
Logic System(FLS), can effectively model human expertise in a specific application.
Lets‘ try and understand fuzzy logic with the help of an example:A question how the temperature is sensed by people can be
demonstrated. The indoor temperature at around 20°C is perceived comfortable by majority of people. The result obtained for 19
°C
and 21°C would be the same. But, the temperatures 0
°C or 30
°C would be sensed differently and noted to be cold or hot. Whereas,
determination of 25°C as comfortable or rather warm temperature, is not as simple. Similar would be the condition for 15
°C to be
noted as cold or comfortable. The conclusion would be that, though the categorization is rather intuitive, the boundary between
them is not because the interface is without clear threshold.
A similar situation occurs during any other decision-making process. So, fuzzy logic could be effective in order to facilitate
it. The ease to comprehend is the biggest advantage about fuzzy logic. Due to its flexibility, it can be tailor made to the situation.
It is easy to understand and practice as it is similar to the thinking and decision making capacity of a human.
The MATLAB uses rules about variable names, a function similar to all the computer languages. It is a must for them to start with
a letter which could then be followed by other letters, numbers or underscores. Case Sensitivity is profound, for example Supplier
and SUPPLIER are read as two different names. A variable name can only be upto 63 characters long, beyond which the
characters stand ignored. There also are words which cannot be used for variable names. They are: if, for, end, while, else-if,
function, case, return, classdef, otherwise, continue, switch, try, else, persistent, global, catch, parfor, spmd, break. An error is
seen if any of the above listed names are entered for a variable.
There are four parts of fuzzy logic system as shown in Figure 1: 1.Fuzzifier; 2.Knowledge base; 3.Inference engine; and
4.Defuzzifier.
Figure 1: Fuzzy logic system
Page 6
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
18
Fuzzification
The measurements of the input variables (input signals, real variables), scale mapping and fuzzification (transformation)are
performed by fuzzifier. Fuzzification means that the measured signals or the crisp input quantities which have numerical
values are transformed into fuzzy quantities. Thus, all the monitored signals are scaled and a transformation of this sort is
performed using membership functions. The number of membership functions and their shapes are initially determined
by the user, in a conventional fuzzy logic. A value between 0 and 1 is given to a membership function, so as to indicate
a quantity‘s degree of belongingness to a fuzzy set. With 1 indicate the absolute belonging of the quantity to the fuzzy
set and 0 otherwise.
To summarize, the process of shifting a real scalar value into a fuzzy value is called fuzzification and this can be attained through
a variety of fuzzifiers or membership functions.
In Matlab, There are 11 membership functions, based on: Linear functions; Gaussian functions; Sigmoid curves; Polynomial
curves – Cubic and Quadratic.
A triangular membership function, is the simplest fuzzifier and it is also known as Trimf in MATLAB. Trapmf is the Matlab
nomenclature for the trapezoidal membership function. They are both simple and straightforward in terms of usage. Based
on Gaussian distribution curve are two membership functions, gaussmf and gauss2mf, apart from a bell membership called
gbellmf. The above functions have gained popularity for their smoothness. Sigmoidal fuzzifiers called sigmf, dsigmf and
psigmf (a combination of both sigmf and dsigmf), and polynomial based curves called zmf, smf and pimf are categori zed as
other fuzzifiers.
Finding appropriate linguistic variables and linguisticterms include the first step of problem solving. Linguistic variables could be
words or sentences written in natural or artificial language. Linguistic terms are what the values of linguistic variables are
called and they are not mathematically operable. An association of each term with a fuzzy number describing its meaning is a
mandate. These linguistic terms might be either importance weights or rating terms,like Very low (VL), Low (L), Medium low
(ML), Medium (M), Medium high (MH), High (H), Very high (VH) or Very poor (VP), Poor (P), Medium poor (MP), Fair
(F), Medium good (MG), Good (G) or Very good (VG), respectively.
Fuzzy inference process
The behavior of the system through rules like<when>, <After>, <then> etc, are defined by the second step. There are all
variables evaluating conditional sentences, on a linguistic level.
For example, a possible inputs like Food (which can be rancid, good and delicious) and Service (poor, good, excellent) can be
chosen during the decision-making process how much tip to leave at a restaurant. Then, being cheap, average or generous might
be the matching output. Eventually, the rules applied could be as follows:
The tip is cheap, if the food is rancid or service poor.
The tip is average, if the food and service are good.
The tip is generous, if the food is delicious or service excellent
The relation of fuzzy rule construction to supplier evaluation is another example. The Linguistic variables here are comprised
of price (linguistic terms: less, medium, high), quality (poor, acceptable, good) and service (bad, optimal, good). With the
choice of supplier selection outputs: reject, under consideration and accept, which provides the information about overall
rating to purchasing managers.
There is an example of possible rules:
With the choice of outputs of supplier selection:
Reject: If service is cheap and price less and quality poor.
Under consideration: If service is optimum and quality accepTable and price medium.
Accept: If service is good and price medium and quality good.
Defuzzification
Obtaining a linguistic output, which most appropriately represents the result of fuzzy computation, is the main aim of
defuzzification. In the previous example of tipping at arestaurant, the appropriate linguistic outputs are identified as cheap,
average and generous.
The linguistic outputs of reject, under consideration and accept, in the second case, simultaneously. The appropriateness of
fuzzy logic and supplier evaluation as found in many researches must be highlighted in the conclusion. For a decision
making process, fuzzy logic is considered a powerful tool.
The conceptual ease to understand is the one of the important features of fuzzy logic. The mathematical concepts behind
fuzzy reasoning are not complex and the ―naturalness‖ of its approach are what makes the fuzzy nice. The logic stands
flexible enough to provide, within an ongoing process/system, for a layering at any level (any variable/vendor). All the
variable parameters, like vendor potential, are initially imprecise and increases with increase in degree of inspection.
Page 7
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
19
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution)
Introduced by Yoon and Hwang, the TOPSIS method was appraised by surveyors and different operators. A full ANP decision
process becomes impractical in a fewcases, due to the presence of a large number of potential available vendors in the current
marketing scenario.To avoid an unreasonably large number of pair-wise comparisons, the TOPSIS method is chosen as the
ranking technique due to its concepts ease of use. Also, for the acquisition of the weights of criteria the ANP is also adopted.
A general TOPSIS process with six activities is first listed below:
Activities
1) Decision matrix establishment for the ranking. The structure of the matrix could be expressed as follows:
Where,
Bi are the alternatives i, i = 1...,m;
Fj stands for the jth
attribute or criterion, j = 1...,n, related to ith
alternative;
Pij would be a crisp value indicating the performance rating of each alternative Bi with respect to each criterion Fj.
2) Normalized decision matrix Q= [Sij] calculation. The normalized value Sij can be calculated as follows:
3) Weighted normalized decision matrix calculation by multiplying it by its associated weights. The weighted normalized value vij
can be calculated as follows
Where,
Wj represents the weight of the jth attribute or criterion.
4) Determination of the PIS and NIS, respectively:
Where,
J – Has a positive criteria association
J' – Has a negative criteria association
5) Separation measures calculation with the help of m-dimensional Euclidean distance.
a) Separation measure + of each alternative from the PIS can be mentioned as follows:
Page 8
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
20
b) Separation measure − of each alternative from the NIS can be mentioned as follows:
6) Relative closeness to the idea solution calculation, and alternatives ranking in
descending order. The relative closeness of the alternative Ai with respect to PIS V+ can be given as follows:
Where,
Index value of Hi* lies between 0 and 1. (Larger the index value, better the performance of alternatives).
5.Research Methodology
Exploratory research was carried out to understand the various deciding factors for vendor selection for the automobile supply
chain. A mixed method approach was chosen, comprising: a focused literature review, to identify key issues, following which a
framework was prepared. This framework was validated by personal interviews study approach through opinion from experts
from the automobile industries, leading to the development of a concrete vendor selection Model.
The list of validated factors identified and used for further research are shown in Table2
Criterion Sub criterion
Quality Product rejection rate
supplier ISO Certifications
Adherence to quality tools, personal, processes
Price/Cost Low initial cost
cost reduction activities (may be economies of scale)
Company capabilities Existing production technology support
R&D/ innovativeness (A)
Technology capacity expansion for future
Management information system
production capacity
production variety
Delivery Delivery-on time every time
Delivery quality
Delivery lead time
Page 9
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
21
Delivery flexibility
Delivery responsiveness
After Sales Service responsiveness
Spare Parts Accessibility
Reputation/ professionalism
Communication & Information transparency
Collaborative development
Financial stability
Environment and social concern
Table 2: Validated selection factors for suppliers
Descriptive Research
In second phase, descriptive research was carried out to get linguistic ratings on the determined factors of the vendor selection
considering agility of the supply chain. These ratings were used to develop the fuzzy rank and score. The first set of ratings is
done to indicate how important or significant the parameter is for vendor selection. These are needed to derive the weights for the
criterion and sub criterion. Following this scores of performance are taken for four suppliers of headlamp systems for Cars of
two auto companies under study.
Twenty one respondents from two Indian auto companies and from department of purchase and supply chain rated these suppliers
on 9 point Likert scale. Structured questionnaire with multiple items on Likert scale validated by some key experts as shown in
Table 2 were circulated .Out of 40 questionnaires send to the company 21 responses were found to be complete and valid for
further data analysis.
6. Discussion
The scores by the previous steps are converted to numerical values with the help of standard conversion Table as shown in Tables
3 and 4. Crisp scores are derived from the fuzzy number equivalents.
Phrase Numerical on Likert scale Actual value
Not important at all 1 11
Not important 2 36
Somewhat important 3 76
Slightly important 4 86
Moderately important 5 100
Important 6 140
Considerably important 7 162
Very important
8 218
Extremely important 9 267
Page 10
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
22
Table 3: Conversion for importance (weights)[9]
Phrase Numerical on Likert scale Actual value
Inferior 1 28
Poor 2 54
So-So 3 100
Fair 4 113
Satisfactory 5 119
Good 6 177
Very good 7 237
Excellent 8 321
Perfect 9 355
Table 4: Conversion for performance [9]
Rating given by experts (on a scale of 1-9) are converted into the numerical value given by the weightage or importance Table
3 and the average is taken.
Similarly each rating given by different respondents (on a scale of 1-9) are also converted into numeric values using Table 4,
i.e. the conversion for performance and then the average is taken.
These scores are finally used in further analysis in MATLAB and in TOPSIS validation. The sequence of steps to be followed
is indicated in the following sections.
MATLAB
Step A:
Find out the share of weights (obtained from the previous step). By dividing each weight by the sum of all weights. For example
for quality it will be:
218/ (218+267+140+162+140+100)= 0.21226474
Criterion Weights Share of weights
Quality 218 0.21226874
Price/Cost 267 0.25998053
Company capabilities 140 0.13631938
Delivery 162 0.15774099
Service 140 0.13631938
Company structure 100 0.09737098
Table 5: share of weights for criterion
Page 11
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
23
Step B:
Similarly calculate the share of weights for subcriterion. An example is shown for quality in Table 6.
Criterion Weights Share of
weights
Sub Criterion Weights Share of
weights for
sub criterion
Quality 218 0.21226874 Product rejection rate 267 0.412674
supplier ISO Certifications 218 0.33694
Adherence to quality
tools, personal, processes
162 0.250386
Table 6: share of weights for sub criterio
Step C:
Multiply the two share of weights to obtain the normalised score for each subcriterion. An example is shown in Table 7
Criterion Weights Share of
Weights
Sub Criterion Weights
Share of
Weights
for sub
criterion
Normalized
Weights
Quality 218 0.21226874 Product rejection
Rate
267 0.412674 0.087597766
supplier ISO
Certifications
218 0.33694 0.071521772
Adherence to
quality tools,
personal, processes
162 0.250386 0.053149206
Table 7: Normalized Weights.
Step D:
Multiply the supplier performance score as obtained from conversion and averaging by the normalized scores. Then obtain
the total for each supplier. Supplier 1, 2, 3 and 4 have the score of 63.72, 54.89, 34.101, 42.198. for the parameter of quality.
Similarly find out score for other parameters like delivery, service, company structure, capabilities, price. These will be the
input scores.
Page 12
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
24
Paramet
Ers
Average score
Criterion Subcriteri
On
normalis
ed
weights
suppli
er 1
suppli
er 2
Suppli
er 3
suppli
er 4
Quality Product
rejection
rate
0.087597
766
337 237 117 177 29.520
45
20.760
67
10.248
94
15.504
8
Supplier
ISO
Certificati
Ons
0.071521
772
340 336 225 241 24.317
4
24.031
32
16.092
4
17.236
75
Adheranc
e to
quality
tools,
personal,
processes
0.053149
206
186 190 146 177 9.8857
52
10.098
35
7.7597
84
9.4074
1
Total
Score
63.723
6
54.890
33
34.101
12
42.148
96
Table 8: Input Scores
Step E:
Range for functions:
Range in defined roughly as 1/3 the weights for the criterion. They are listed in Table 6.8. These will be useful in defining the
membership functions for fuzzy logic.
Parameter Range
Quality [0 73]
Price [0 89]
Company caapbilities [0 47]
Delivery [0 54]
Service [0 47]
Company structure [0 33]
Table 9: Range of membership function
Page 13
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
25
Step F:
Open the fuzzy logic tool box. Using the edit function add the six parameters: price, quality, delivery, company structure,
capabilities and service.
Figure 2: Defining the parameters
Step G:
Define the membership functions of each of the parameters and the output. Define the following;
1) And Method='min'
2) Or Method='max'
3) Imp Method='min'
4) Agg Method='max'
5) Defuzz Method='centroid'
The range is specified as given in Table 9. Further the range for output is defined as [0 1]. There may be a name defined for each
membership function. For instance Price_score, Quality_score etc. any number of membership function can be chosen.
Here, three membership functions namely high, medium and low are chosen for the input parameters or input membership
functions and five membership functions namely very high, high, medium, low and very low are chosen for the output. The
trapezoidal function is chosen for inputs and the triangular functions are chosen for the output. Sample functions are shown in
Figure7 and 8. Table10 enumerated the different functions.
Parameter
Quality_score MF1='Low':'trapmf',[0 0 8.9 40.05]
MF2='medium':'trapmf',[8.9 40.05 48.95 80.1]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[48.95 80.1 89 89] Price_score MF1='Low':'trapmf',[0 0 7.3 32.85]
MF2='medium':'trapmf',[7.3 32.85 40.15 65.7]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[40.15 65.7 73 73]
Company capabilities_score MF1='mf1Low':'trapmf',[0 0 4.7 21.15]
MF2='Medium':'trapmf',[4.7 21.15 25.85 42.3]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[25.97 42.3 47 68.27]
Page 14
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
26
Delivery_score MF1='Low':'trapmf',[0 0 5.4 24.3]
MF2='Medium':'trapmf',[5.4 24.3 29.7 48.6]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[29.84 48.6 54 54
Service_score MF1='Low':'trapmf',[0 0 4.7 21.15]
MF2='Medium':'trapmf',[4.7 21.15 25.85 42.3]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[25.85 42.3 47 47]
Company structure_score MF1='Low':'trapmf',[0 0 3.3 14.85]
MF2='Medium':'trapmf',[3.3 14.85 18.15 29.7]
MF3='High':'trapmf',[18.15 29.7 33 33]
Supplier_score MF1='Very_Low':'trimf',[-0.25 6.939e-018 0.25]
MF2='Low':'trimf',[0.15 0.25 0.5]
MF3='Medium':'trimf',[0.3 0.5 0.7]
MF4='High':'trimf',[0.5 0.75 0.85]
MF5='Very_HIgh':'trimf',[0.75 1 1.25] Figure 3: Membership function definition for output
Table 10: Defining membership function
Page 15
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
27
Figure 4: Membership function definition for parameter Quality Score
Step H:
Through the edit menu, we can define new rules. A total of 178 if then rules were defined.
Step I:
After defining the rules, the final step involves viewing the results. The results can be seen in view> rules. In the dialog box that
opens the total score that was calculated as indicated in Table 8 is entered. i.e., total score for supplier 1 for each of the six
parameters in the defined order is entered. This is shown in Figure 9 for supplier 1. The six input numbers can be seen in Input
box.
Figure 5: Viewing rules
TOPSIS validation
TOPSIS is a validation step to the fuzzy logic method. First the normalized weights of each sub criterion are calculated as
stated earlier. The calculations done as per the discussion under the theoretical background section are as follows:
Sij is the supplier score divided by the square root of the sum of squares of the scores of all four suppliers.
Colum Vj gives SJ*the normalized weights
V+ and V- are the maximum and the minimum values among the four suppliers.
E+ and E- are the square root of the total of squares of deviations each suppliers Vj from V= and V- respectively.
Finally supplier scores are obtained by the formula
These scores help in giving the rank of the suppliers. Supplier with the highest score has the maximum rank and
that with the lowest score has the lowest rank
Sum of E+ and E-, Square roots of the sums (E+ and E-)
The relative closeness to ideal solution is calculated for alternative suppliers with index value Hi* showing higher
performance if the value is closer to 1 and low performing suppliers if value is near 0.
Performance evaluation and categorization of suppliers is done using above scores. Detailed calculations for TOPSIS
methodology of supplier evaluation is shown in Table 11.
Page 16
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
28
Conclusion and scope
The results from both MATLAB and TOPSIS are tabulated in Table 12. Here we see that the scores are in perfect
synchronization with each other. Further these scores also tally with the overall perception of the supplier in the automobile
industry.
Name of
supplier
MATLAB
Score
TOPSIS
Score
Supplier
Rank
A SUPPLIER 1 0.667 0.95514787 1
B
lighting
SUPPLIER 2 0.535 0.50017748 2
C
lighting
SUPPLIER 3 0.5 0.30400511 4
D
lighting
SUPPLIER 4 0.519 0.37197204 3
Table 12: supplier Scores
Hence it can be safely assumed that fuzzy logic takes into consideration the ambiguities and uncertainties in human decisions
and provides a structured way of expert decision making with consistency in the approach. However there are some serious
shortcomings in the method developed. The method can only be used for a limited number of factors and merely accounts for a
total score. It fails to see the fuzziness in the sub criteria, as the conditions have been written merely for the 6 important factors
(and not the sub factors).
Table 11: Calculations for TOPSIS
Page 17
Asia Pacific Journal of Research ISSN (Print) : 2320-5504
ISSN (Online) : 2347-4793
www.apjor.com Vol: I. Issue XL, June 2016
29
Hence in future a new method can be developed to include many more parameters. Further
a two-step mechanism can be devised to calculate the fuzzy scores for each criterion with input as the respective sub criteria. This
will ensure that the fuzziness at sub-step level is also included. These resulting criterions can be fed to output function to get final
score as usual.
Further this study can be replicated to various other industries where supplier selectionplays a very important role, like
electronics, consumer durables etc.
References
1. P. Parthiban, Dr , H. Abdul Zubar, Chintamani P. Garge. (2012) ‗A multi criteria decision making approach for suppliers
selection‘ International conference on modelling optimisation and computing, Procedia Engineering, vol. 38,
September,pp. 2312-2328
2. Chen Tung Chen, ChingTorng Lin, Sue Fn Huang. (2006) ‗A Fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in
supply chain management‘, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102 Iss: 2, August,pp. 289-301
3. A Amid, S.H Ghodsypour, C O Brien. (2008) ‗Fuzzy multi-objective liner model for supplier selection in supply chain‘,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering &
Production Research, Vol. 19No: 4, pp. 1-8
4. EleonoraBottani, Antonio Rizzi. (2008) ‗An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An
application oriented to lead-time reduction‘, International journal of production economics, Vol. 111, pp. 763- 781
5. LauroOsiro, Francisco R. Lima-Junior, Luiz Cesar R. Carpinetti. (2014) ‗A fuzzy logic approach to supplier evaluation
for development‘, International journal of
Production economics, Vol. 153 Iss: C, pp. 95-112
6. CengizKahraman, UfukCebeci, ZiyaUlukan. (2003) ‗Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP‘, Logistics
Information Management, Vol. 16No: 6, pp. 382-394
7. Sharon M. Ordoobadi, (2009) "Development of a supplier selection model using fuzzy logic", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss: 4, pp.314 – 327
8. LX Wang. (1997) A course in fuzzy systems and control, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,ISBN 0 13
(540882), 2
9. DebashisPati, (2002)Marketing research, Universities Press.