An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach For Supplier Evaluation and Selection in a Steel Manufacturing Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplier selection is a complex problem involving qualitative and quantitative multicriteria. A trade-off between these tangible and intangible factors is essential in selecting the best supplier. This problem initiated when there are limitations in the capacity in which the managers are compelled to decide about two issues: which suppliers are the best and how much should be purchased from each selected supplier. Varieties of approaches have been applied, in the form of mixed integers, goal, and multi-objective programming to solve this problem. This approaches, being mathematical that have vital problems in considering qualitative factors. These study apply questionnaires to identifj and adopt the important criteria for supplier selection based on related studies by Dickson (1966), Weber (1991) and Zhang's (2003). In this work both tangible and intangible factors in choosing the best suppliers through analytical hierarchy process (AHP) were incorporated into Saaty's (1 980) proposed method. AHP process makes it possible to place the optimum order quantities among the selected suppliers, so that the total value of purchasing (TVP) becomes maximum. The Saaty's (1980) analytical hierarchy process (AHP) which is used in this case study can be useful in involving several decision makers with different conflicting objectives to arrive at a consensus decision. The main contribution of the study was identification of the important criteria for supplier selection process. The criteria found were Trust between key men, followed by net price and re-win percentage. Second contribution or findings was development of a multi-criteria decision model for evaluation and selection which is used for supplier selection in ABC steel company. Finally, the developed model is tested on four supplier selection problems. The results show the models are able to assist decisionmakers to examine the strengths and weaknesses of supplier selection by comparing them with appropriate criteria, sub-criteria and sub sub-criteria. Further more, the systematic effect of this process, can reduce the time taken to select a supplier
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".