AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL, NOIDA

DISSERTATION SYNOPSIS

Name of the candidate: Aakanksha Jain

Faculty Guide: Dr. Rushina Singhi

Enrollment Number: A0102313117

Program And batch: MBA (HR) Batch of 2013-2015
1. Title of the study
EVALUATION AND SELECTING SUPPLIERS IN PAPER INDUSTRY
2. Problem statement
Understand the decision making process of paper traders.
3. Relevance of the study
A screening model using the Analytic Hierarchy Process is developed that facilitates a systematic
evaluation of paper traders by incorporating both qualitative and quantitative information into the
decision making process. This systematic evaluation is useful in selecting a supplier and
accessing their performance.
Therefore, the feasibility of this research is needed.

4. Literature Review/Conceptual framework

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for organizing and
analyzing complex decisions, based on mathematics and psychology. It was developed
byThomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined since then.
It has particular application in group decision making, and is used around the world in a wide
variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and
education.
Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers find one that best
suits their goal and their understanding of the problem. It provides a comprehensive and rational

framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for
relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.
Users of the AHP first decompose their decision problem into a hierarchy of more easily
comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analyzed independently. The elements of the
hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision problemtangible or intangible, carefully
measured or roughly estimated, well or poorly understoodanything at all that applies to the
decision at hand.
Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically evaluate its various elements by
comparing them to one another two at a time, with respect to their impact on an element above
them in the hierarchy. In making the comparisons, the decision makers can use concrete data
about the elements, but they typically use their judgments about the elements' relative meaning
and importance. It is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not just the underlying
information, can be used in performing the evaluations.
The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared
over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element
of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one
another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other
decision making techniques.
In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision
alternatives. These numbers represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the decision
goal, so they allow a straightforward consideration of the various courses of action.
Typical applications where AHP has been used are in:

Prioritizing factors and requirements that impact software development and productivity,

Choosing among several strategies for improving safety features in motor vehicles,

Estimating cost and scheduling options for material requirements planning (MRP),

Selecting desired software components from several software vendors,

Evaluating the quality of research or investment proposals.

AHP also uses actual measures like price, counts, or subjective opinions as inputs into a
numerical matrix. The outputs include ratio scales and consistency indices derived by computing
eigen values and eigen vectors.

Saaty allowed some measures of inconsistency (common with subjective human judgment) when
applied to the logic of preferences. Inconsistencies arise when comparing three items, A, B, and
C. For example, if item A is more preferred over item B, and item B is more preferred over item
C, then by the transitive property, Item A should be more preferred over item C. If not, then the
comparisons are not consistent.
Measures of inconsistency set AHP apart from other multi-criteria methods like goal
programming, Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Conjoint analysis (CA), or Choice
experiments. Goal programming applies linear programming to achieve the goals subject to
changing objectives constrained by adding slack and other variables representing deviation from
the goal.
5. Research Methodology
Data will be collected through a mix of both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary
data will be collected with the help of questionnaires which will be filled by the paper suppliers
and traders of different companies. As far as secondary data is concerned, already existing data
of paper traders and suppliers will be referred for the purpose of collecting the data.

6. Tentative Chapter Scheme

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Findings
Chapter 5: Conclusion, Findings and Recommendations

References/Bibliography

Saaty, T.L. (1977), A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures, Journal
of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281.
Saaty, T.L., (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., (1999), Decision Making for Leaders, 3rd ed., RWS Publications: Pittsburgh,
PA.

Signature of Student

Signature of Faculty Guide

(Aakanksha Jain)

(Dr. Rushina Singhi)