Question

Question 2 (5 Marks) Suppose that there are three Suppliers (Supplier A, Supplier B. Supplier C) and we are interested to evaluate the performance of the suppliers by using AHP method. Some of the criteria for supplier selection process can be defined as follows: Cost, Quality, and Timeliness I a. We would like to add more factors as criteria to the three above mentioned criteria. What else factor can be defined as criteria? Define at least two more criteria. (2 Marks) b. By considering only the above three criteria (Cost, Quality, and Timeliness). you first introduce three different suppliers that you may know and further rank these three alternative suppliers and select the best one using AHP method. The pairwise comparison matrix for each of the three suppliers for each criterion and the comparison matrix for the three criteria can be given by you based on your judgment and experiences. (3 Marks)

Answer 1

The initial phase in any provider rating system is to see the fitting measures as utilized for surveying the provider. To conform to the models for provider choice and their significance, required information were gathered dependent on the thought of writing. In light of considering the investigations of Dickson (1966); Weber, Current, and Benton (1991); Krishnan (2008); and Tahriri, Osman, Yusuff and Esfandiary, (2008), five significant measures were chosen.

The models were chosen are the most measures utilized in various businesses. Numerous investigations, referenced in the writing survey, rate each factor by utilizing the four-class size of "Not significant (1 to 3)", "Some-what significant (4 to 5)", "Significant (6 to 7)" and "significant (8 to 9)" (Tam and Tummala, 2001). The chose rules were discovered spread ABC Company's needs. Also, the nearness of an excessive number of models makes the pair-wise examinations in assessing providers a troublesome and tedious procedure. To beat these issues, the slice off an incentive to lessen the quantity of standards to a couple is alluring

In this progression, the meaning of the sub-standards and sub-models has been accomplished for provider choice dependent on the five significant measures chose as the aftereffects of the past advance with the thought of writing. Likewise, the sub and sub-measures chose have been finished by utilizing a similar guideline that was utilized to choose the rules referenced in the initial step.

Subsequent to social event the required sub and sub-standards, they were distinguished and found the middle value of. Fourteen sub-standards and thirty-two sub-rules were chosen for levels (3) and (4) in provider determination model as appeared in (Figure 1)

Stage 3: Structure the progressive model

This stage includes building the AHP progressive system model and computing the loads of each degrees of provider choice model. The created AHP model, in view of the distinguished standards, sub-rules and sub-rules, contains five levels: the objective, the rules, sub-rules, sub-sub measures, and options.

(Figure 1) shows an illustrative five-level chain of importance for the provider determination issue. The main degree of the chain of command is distinguished to choose the provider for ABC Company. The subsequent level (measures) contains cost, quality, conveyance, the executives and association, and budgetary. The third and fourth degree of the progressive system comprise fourteen sub-measures and thirty-two sub-standards. The most minimal degree of the chain of command contains of the other options, to be specific the diverse provider to be assessed so as to choose the best provider. The AHP model appeared in (figure 1) is commonly material to any provider choice procedure of ABC Company. In view of the thought of writing, the need weight of every model in each level was resolved. The pair-wise correlation decisions were utilized to locate the significant rules in level two. This methodology is seen as exceptionally valuable in gathering information. The capacity of the pair-wise correlations is by finding the overall significance of the standards and sub-rules, which is evaluated by the nine-point scale proposed by Saaty (1980), as appeared in Table 1, showing the degree of relative significance from equivalent, moderate, solid, exceptionally solid, to extraordinary level by 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, separately. The moderate qualities between two contiguous contentions were spoken to by 2, 4, 6, and 8.

As referenced, the need weight was resolved. Here is an example of pair-wise correlation grid that tells the best way to figure models, in level two, which were decided by different investigations referenced in the writing. The section for the five line and the five segment gives the significance of that line's measure comparative with the segment's basis as appeared in Table 2.

Clearly the cost measure is the heaviest among other standards. The principal line shows how the cost weight firmly thinks about to the others. For instance, the cost rule is liked to the quality by the estimation of 2, liked to the conveyance by the estimation of 4 and wanted to the administration and association and money related by the estimation of 5 for every one of them. A decent exhibition on quality, the basis for the subsequent line and segment, is tolerably more significant than having great conveyance, the administration and association and monetary, (appeared by the estimation of 2,4 and 4 Sequentially). An estimation of 1 is allocated to the askew components since conveyance (line) is similarly wanted to conveyance (segment).

In the wake of acquiring the pair-wise decisions as in Table 3, the subsequent stage is the calculation of weighting of components in the lattice. In the wake of ascertaining every section to locate the aggregate, partitioned the components of that segment by the all out of the segment. At long last, include the components in each subsequent line and separation this entirety by the quantity of components in the line to get the normal. (Reference section 2) represents the figurings of the network. The aftereffects of need loads are cost (0.444), quality (0.268), conveyance (0.134), the administration and association (0.088) and money related (0.066)

The consistency proportion (C.R.) for the examination above is determined to decide the acknowledgment of the need weighting. The consistency test is one of the fundamental highlights of the AHP technique, which expects to wipe out the conceivable irregularity uncovered in the measures loads through the calculation of consistency level of every framework. The consistency proportion (CR) was utilized to decide and legitimize the irregularity in the pair-wise correlation made by the respondents. In view of Saaty's (1980) exact proposal that a C.R. = 0.10 is satisfactory, it is presumed that the prior pair-wise correlations with get quality loads are sensibly steady. In the event that the CR esteem is lower than the

adequate worth, the weight results are legitimate and steady. Interestingly, if the CR esteem is bigger than the adequate worth, the grid results are conflicting and are absolved for the further investigation. Assessing the consistency proportion is as per the following: The accompanying should be possible physically or naturally by the AHP programming,

Choosing fitting estimation of arbitrary consistency proportion, RI, for a grid size of five utilizing Table 4, we discover RI = 1.12. We at that point ascertain the consistency proportion, CR, as follows:

cr=ci/ri=0.0238/1.12=0.02128

As the estimation of CR is under 0.1, the decisions are worthy (Al-Harbi, 2001).

The organized of sub-models in the third level and sub-measures in the fourth level likewise rely upon the nearby loads. The worldwide loads are determined by increasing the nearby loads with models, sub-standards and sub-rules. For instance the counts of the worldwide loads of cost rules are appeared as follows. The consequence of need rules' with nearby loads of each level is appeared in Table 5a.

Table 5b displays the neighborhood loads for every model in each level. The outcomes show that in the second degree of measures, cost with neighborhood weight of (0.444) had been organized as the principal standards followed by quality (0.268), conveyance (0.134), the executives and association (0.088), and money related (0.066).

End

The issues of provider choice have pulled in light of a legitimate concern for specialists since the 1960s, and examination around there has developed. Proceeding with the past works in provider choice zone, the work has effectively accomplished its goals.

The primary commitment of the work was the ID of the significant models for the provider choice procedure. At that point a multi-measures choice model for assessing and choosing a provider was created. The model for provider assessment and choice was created utilizing the AHP strategy. The AHP model is surveying leaders to recognize and assess the provider choice.

At long last, the created model is tried on four provider choice issues. The outcomes show the models can help chiefs to analyze the qualities and shortcomings of provider choice by contrasting them and fitting rules, sub-standards and sub-rules.

The created model has not been executed at this point. It is simply tried on four provider choice issues as referenced, yet the result suggests that the value model has the greater part weight among other standards. That is appropriate for utilizing in ABC Company who utilizes the main value measure to choose and assess providers. Despite the fact that it was given the most elevated load to the value different standards were given unprejudiced loads. As it were, each rule had been given what was merited load so as to accomplish the best technique to choose the correct provider. Likewise, ABC Company could be fulfilled when utilizing the created model that gives the value standard impartial capacity to evaluatesuppliers. Picking the correct provider could give the correct amount and the correct expense on the correct course of events.

Supplier selection Pomor 1996 cast Quality Delivery EDT ca Maragent organization financial. pa ra Cl1-2) D IG E C3 R E 1doo FOLPH 16 dis- d22 day ya Dic 1994d a to a34 59-10 558 17 19 Supplies A supplier B supplied Sestola y todo rean jest za 32 worrupplies - Topics Y at this figure shows 5 Level of Lieserchy.

10.134) (0.066 o st Lowlio Withia far sepplies Selectic verbal judgement of perfarmare Nanecial rating Extemely preffered verly strongly preffied strongly preffucced Hoduate preffe equally preffied 1 Intellmediate valves blw 2 adjocd 21 41 618 Judgement (When comprise is needed AJາ cost Qualot Delivery re Managirl

in table ~2. diteria fou suppliu cant auslots oct very Marques Financl. od orgon selection with cant 2 5 5 Quality V2 - 2 니 Ч 12 1 2 pelivery Managert od Orgainy 45 ly 42 pi namold 45 үч 112 12

Witucia far reppuies selection Aveloge. Row total Lovt Quality Relicly hop Horarge Kironid, orgaridus cost a 0.444 2 • 222 0.465 0.5 005 0.4 0.312 Qualot 0.268 1° 339 0233 025 0.25 0.32 0.286 D 134 0.669 0*116 OkroRF 0-66 010 Delivery Managent od organizations o. of 0.44 0093 0.062 0.002 0.08 0.149 o- of 0.062 0.04 0.062 0.066 Financial 00093 0.328 total con los furtity the inconsistency