International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Supplier Selection Using Multi-objective Programming: A Decision Support System Approach

Charles A. Weber Lisa M. Ellram
Article information:
To cite this document:
Charles A. Weber Lisa M. Ellram, (1993),"Supplier Selection Using Multi-objective Programming: A Decision Support System
Approach", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 3 - 14
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039310038161
Downloaded on: 29 December 2014, At: 22:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 823 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Cengiz Kahraman, Ufuk Cebeci, Ziya Ulukan, (2003),"Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP", Logistics Information
Management, Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp. 382-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503367
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

Hokey Min, (1994),"International Supplier Selection:: A Multi-attribute Utility Approach", International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24 Iss 5 pp. 24-33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039410064008
Ferhan Çebi, Demet Bayraktar, (2003),"An integrated approach for supplier selection", Logistics Information Management,
Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp. 395-400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503376

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 289728 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING
The use of multi-objective programming is explored
as a method for supplier selection in a just-in-time
setting.
Supplier
Selection Using
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
Multi-objective
Programming:
A Decision Support
System Approach
Charles A. Weber andLisaM. Ellram
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol 23 No. 2, 1993, pp. 3-14 © MCB University Press, 0960-0035
Introduction
Much attention has been placed in the past decade on
the manufacturing philosophy known as just-in-time
(JIT) manufacturing. Much has also been written
regarding the issue of supplier selection under such a
philosophy[l-5]. However, little has been done in regard
to defining an approach to implement the selection of
suppliers in a JIT environment This article discusses
such an approach using a multi-objective programming
(MOP) model operating in the context of a
computerized, decision support system. It is the belief of
the authors that such an approach overcomes many of
the weaknesses found in traditional supplier selection
methods by presenting the buyer with alternative
solutions to a particular problem so that the buyer
Received April 1992
Revised November 1992
3
maintains control of the decision-making process. In
addition, unlike traditional supplier selection
approaches, MOP simultaneously finds alternative
solutions for suppliers to be selected, and the volume
allocated among suppliers.
This article begins with a discussion of the JIT
supplier selection problem, followed by an
introduction to the mathematics of multi-objective
programming. Next, an application of the multi-
objective programming approach to a purchasing
problem of one manufacturing firm is presented.
Finally, the decision support system is discussed.
The Supplier Selection Problem in a JIT
Environment
The analysis of criteria for supplier selection and
performance measurement has been the focus of many
academicians and purchasing practitioners since the
1960s. Gary W. Dickson [6] studied the factors which
various authors considered important in the supplier
selection process. He concluded: "From the purchasing
literature, it is fairly easy to abstract a list of at least 50
distinct factors (characteristic of supplier performance)
that are presented by various authors as being
meaningful to consider in the vendor selection
decision" [6]. Dickson later condensed this set to 23
factors to study with purchasing agents for their overall
importance to the supplier selection decision.
The Dickson study demonstrated that the supplier
selection process is inherently multi-objective in nature
(i.e. involves the consideration of multiple criteria).
Wind and Robinson [7] further showed that interaction
typically exists between these supplier selection criteria
and that the effect of this interaction will be lost if only a
single criterion is considered. In a later study,
Dempsey[8] demonstrated that the importance of the
criteria changes from one buying situation to another.
For many manufacturing companies, the JIT approach
to inventory management has become necessary to
operate competitively. However, the JIT approach
substantially complicates the duties of the purchasing
department. The buyer can no longer be concerned with
merely the purchase price of raw material and parts. The
buyer must now also be very concerned with meeting
the specific production needs. Such needs are often
dictated by a very precise schedule with very precise
quantities. Therefore, the reliability of the supplier in
terms of meeting scheduled delivery and quality
requirements for raw material (parts) becomes of
paramount importance to the company's production
 4 IJPD & LM 23,2
operations. In true JIT environments, the concept of
safety stock to serve as a buffer for such events as late
deliveries and defective raw material (parts) is greatly
reduced or eliminated.
Criteria Importance
A recent review of supplier selection criteria by Weber
et al.[9] illustrated that implementation of the JIT
approach often creates a change in the relative
importance of criteria by which suppliers are selected.
Criteria such as quality, delivery performance, and the
use of local suppliers tend to increase in importance.
Further, these criteria often conflict with one another.
For example, a reduction in the price of an item may
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
necessitate a reduction in quality or delivery
performance. Conversely, an increase in an item price
may allow the supplier to provide improved quality or
better delivery performance.
Selection Approaches
Timmerman[10] has identified three basic approaches
to the evaluation of a supplier in practice today—the
categorical, cost-ratio, and linear average or weighted-
point methods. Timmerman criticizes the categorical
method as largely an intuitive approach relying on a
buyer's memory, personal judgement, ability and
experience. Whereas the cost-ratio method provides
more objective results; operationally Timmerman found
it to be extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive
cost-accounting system to generate the precise cost data
needed. The linear average method is more objective
than the categorical method. However, Timmerman still
found room for considerable judgement in determining
the weights for the evaluation criteria, as well as the
numerical values for a supplier's performance.
When applying any of the above methods to a JIT
purchasing situation, as well as the supplier selection
process in most complex situations, one further
criticism can be made. Given the multi-criteria nature of
the JIT supplier selection process, where criteria such as
price, quality and delivery are all viewed as important, it
is difficult, if not impossible, to use these methods to
measure the trade-offs which exist among these criteria
in any given buying situation. That is, none of these
methods allow the buyer to determine easily the best
combination of suppliers and associated order quantities
to use when these criteria may vary in importance in the
buyer's mind. It is relative to this criticism that multi-
objective, mathematical programming is seen as an
especially useful tool to the buyer.
Mathematical Background in Multi-objective
Programming
As early as 1973, Moore and Fearon[ll, p. 16] recog-
nized the potential for solving supplier selection
problems using optimization models:
These models (linear programming) would have as their
objective the analysis of any combinations of multi-price,
multi-supplier, multi-item, multi-user, multi-time period
procurement situations... The computer program would
manipulate the data to arrive at an optimum mix of supplier
awards under the given constraints. These constraints may
take the form of a limitation placed on the amount of
business any supplier could be awarded... Program options
might include an ability to measure the outcome and
economic effect of altering the constraints... Such models
are almost a necessity for the comprehensive analysis of
large contracts involving many items and many suppliers.
Multi-objective programming (MOP) deals with
optimization problems involving two or more objective
functions. In single-objective problems, the goal is to
identify an optimal solution, where the optimal solution
is the feasible solution which gives the best value of the
objective function. In multi-objective problems, a
solution which optimizes one objective will not, in
general, optimize the other objectives as well. Generally,
trade-offs exist among the objectives such that one or
more objectives must be sacrificed in value in order to
obtain an improvement in some other objective.
When defining these trade-offs, feasible solutions to the
problem will be found such that no other feasible
solution will yield an improvement in one objective
without degrading the value of at least one other
objective. These feasible solutions are referred to as
"non-inferior", "efficient", "non-dominated", or "Pareto
optimal" solutions. Therefore, in multi-objective
problems the notion of the optimal solution is replaced
by the concept of the "best-compromise solution,"
where the "best-compromise solution" is the non-
inferior solution selected to be the preferred alternative
by the decision maker.
The identification of each non-inferior solution requires
the solution of an optimization problem. Multi-objective
problems which have only continuous decision variables
can have an infinite number of non-inferior solutions.
However, multi-objective problems which solely contain
integer or discrete decision variables, have a finite
number of non-inferior solutions, although this number
may be very large. Mixed integer multi-objective
problems, where both integer and continuous decision
 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING 5
variables are present, have non-inferior solutions which
often are step-wise in appearance when graphed in two
dimensions. These problems often have solutions which
alternate between being continuous and discontinuous
over various ranges of criteria values.
Estimating Solutions
Because of the computational burden associated with
computing the entire non-inferior frontier, it is generally
satisfactory to generate an estimate of the entire non-
inferior set Several methods exist to do this. However,
the weighing method[12] and the NISE method[13] are
two methods recommended by these authors for the
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
supplier selection problem as they can generate efficient
solutions over the entire range of a problem's feasible
region without altering the structure of the objective
function or constraint set From this range of "best-
compromise solutions" a decision maker may then
select a course of action.
For further discussion of these methods, please see
Zadeh[12] and Cohon, et al.[13]. Both methods
systematically convert the problem to a single objective
situation, then solve the resulting single objective
problem. Using either method, multi-objective
modelling can be used to identify alternative groups of
suppliers from which to order an item as well as the
order quantities for each supplier. The interested reader
is referred to Cohon [14] for a more detailed description
of multi-objective programming.
Multi-objective mathematical programming models
have been used successfully in many areas of research
including facility location[15-18] network design[19, 20],
transportat network design[21], transportat resource
allocation[22-26], and water resource allocation[27].
Surveys of multi-objective modelling can be found in the
literature[28-33].
While multi-objective programming has been applied
successfully in other fields, mathematical programming
applications in purchasing have primarily been
concerned with single-objective models. Three single-
objective, linear programming applications are
discussed in Anthony and Buffa[34], Kingsman[35]
and Pan[36]. Single-objective, mixed integer models
are also discussed[37-39]. Goal programming, arguably
a multi-objective modelling form, was used in
applications by Buffa and Jackson [40] and Sharma
et al.[41]. Recently, Weber and Current have shown
the theoretical development of the multi-objective model
for supplier selection [42].
An Application of the Multi-objective Approach
to Supplier Selection
This section of the article describes the application of
a multi-objective programming model to a firm
practising the JIT manufacturing philosophy. The firm is
a division of a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company. The
application is for a single item which was chosen
by the firm to be representative of their manufac-
turing process. The firm expended nearly $14 million
a year on this item.
Model Development
Meetings were held with the firm to identify the forms
of the objective functions and constraints appropriate
to the purchasing situation for the item. The outcomes
of these meetings produced the following purchasing
scenario to be modelled:
(1) The company was in the process of moving
towards a JIT manufacturing environment.
Three objectives relating to price, quality and
delivery were seen as appropriate for testing
the model. The company's management was
interested in results for the following
combinations of criteria: price versus delivery,
price versus quality, and price versus quality
versus delivery.
(2) The price objective was quantified by
minimizing the total purchase price based on
a per unit contract delivered price for the
"price" objective.
(3) The delivery objective was quantified by
using late deliveries of the item. The
"delivery" objective function minimized the
number of units ordered which were late.
(4) The quality objective was quantified by using
rejected units of the item. The "quality"
objective function minimized the number of
units shipped which were rejected.
(5) Modelling results were developed for a varied
number of suppliers.
 6 IJPD & LM 23,2

Supplier Selection Model
Thefinalform of the model which was tested appears as
follows:
min Z =
subject to:
xj≤min {uuj,wuj}v1for all
xj≥max {uLj,wLj}vjfor all
xj≥0 for all
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
standards of the firm, only six suppliers competed for
this firm's business at the test plant Purchase orders
and receiving documents were aggregated for the item
over a one-year period in order to protect the
(Z1,Z2,Z3) (1) confidentiality of the individual suppliers. A demand of
10,790,000 units of material was forecasted over the
planning horizon. Individual supplier's capacity
constraints were such that a minimum of four suppliers
were needed to supply this demand.
j (3)
j (4)
Price versus Delivery Results
The model was run with varying weights on the price
and delivery objectives (PD) for four (PD4), five (PD5),
j (6) and six (PD6) suppliers. The number of suppliers was

fixed for each run by specifying the right-hand side

vj ε(0,1) for all j (7) value for constraint [5] to be four, five or six. The NISE
method[13] was used to generate the weights for
where: solutions on the convex hull. Duality gap solutions were
obtained using the constraint method [43] by optimizing
on the price objective and placing the delivery objective
as a constraint in the model. The quantity of late
deliveries was varied in increments of 10,000 units
between the convex hull solutions. Table I shows the
results for the five supplier model.
n = number of suppliers
xj = quantity purchased from supplier j
Table I indicates that the PD5 model generated five
vj = 1 if supplierjselected supplier/order quantity solutions on the convex hull
(solutions 1-5) and 11 duality gap solutions (solutions
= 0 if otherwise 1D-11D). To help the reader's understanding, these
solutions are also shown graphically in Figure 1. The
ϱj = per unit net purchase cost from supplier j "weight" column shows the weight that each objective
(price, quality) was assigned by the NISE method. The
λj = percentage of items late from supplier j "value" column indicates the solution values for price in
βj = percentage of rejected units from supplier j dollars, and delivery in late units. The last column,
"supplier number/order quantity" shows the number of
D = aggregate demand for item over planning units ordered from each supplier in the current solution.
period Solution number 1 identifies the least monetary cost,
highest late delivery rate alternative with a cost of
uuj = maximum amount of business for item to be $2,221,790 and a late delivery rate of 321,100 units of
given to supplier j material. Solution number 5 identifies the lowest late
delivery rate, highest monetary cost alternative with a
uLj = minimum amount of business for item to be late delivery rate of 176,010 units of material and a cost of
given to supplier j
$2,292,015. Solutions number 2, 3, and 4 represent
wuj = maximum order quantity from supplier j intermediate convex hull solutions with respective
monetary costs and late delivery rates of $2,251,223 and
wLj = minimum order quantityfromsupplier j. 212,610 units, $2,258,807 and 199,810 units and
$2,265,191 and 191,830 units of material. Solutions
number 1D to 10D are duality gap solutions found
Data to test the model were supplied by the firm for one between convex hull solutions number 1 and number 2.
of their plants from their MRP-II system. Due to the Solution number 11D is a duality gap solution found
volume of the item's purchases and the quality between convex hull solutions number 4 and number 5.
 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING 7

TableI.Price-Delivery Five-Supplier
Model Solutions

Solution number Objective Weight Value Supplier number Order quantity (units)
1 Price 10 $2,221,790 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery .001 321.000 V2- 360,000
V3- 0
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,530,000
V6- 2,500,000
2 Price 25 $2,251,223 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 1.0 212,610 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,247,000
V6- 0
3 Price 135 $2,258,807 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 1.0 199,810 V2- 40,000
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,567,000
V6- 0
4 Price 10 $2,265,191 V1- 2,001,000
Delivery 10 191,830 V2- 40,000
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 3,000,000
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

V5- 2,966,000
V6- 0
5 Price .0001 $2,292,015 V1- 40,000
Delivery 10 176,010 V2- 0
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,467,000
V6- 2,500,000
1D Price 10 $2,222,441 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 320,000 V2- 332,500
V3- 0
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,557,500
V6- 2,500,000
2D Price 1.0 $2,228,366 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 0.0 310,000 V2- 82,500
V3- 0
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,807,500
V6- 2,500,000
3D Price 10 $2,232,242 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 300,000 V2- 0
V3- 2,233,333
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,666,667
V6- 2,500,000
4D Price 10 $2,235,109 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 290,000 V2- 0
V3- 556,666
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,333,334
V6- 2,500,000
5D Price 10 $2,237,975 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 280,000 V2- 0
V3- 890,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,000,000
V6- 2,500,000
6D Price 10 $2,240,842 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 270,000 V2- 0
V3- 1,223,333
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 1,666,667
V6- 2,500,000
7D Price 10 $2,243,548 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 245,200 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,530,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 0
V6- 2,500,000
8D Price 10 $2,245,040 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 234,180 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,064,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,966,000
V6- 0
9D Price 10 $2,246,238 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 230,000 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,203,233
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,826,667
V6- 0
10D Price 10 $2,249,105 V1- 2,400,000
Delivery 00 220,000 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,336,667
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,493,233
V6- 0
11D Price 10 $2,286,423 V1- 3,895,500
Delivery 00 183,000 V2- 0
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,117,500
V6- 2,500,000
Note: Price=$ purchase cost Delivery=units delivered late
 8 IJPD & LM 23,2

increase in monetary cost Thus, the graphic solution

allows the buyer to spot easily the trade-offs between
price and quality that provide the greatest return (lowest
marginal cost), by looking for the areas in the graph with
the least price-delivery slope.

Figure 2 shows the curves resulting from graphing the

convex hull solutions for the model with four, five and six
suppliers. Figure 2 indicates that the least monetary cost
solution is to be found when running the PD model with
five suppliers. Figure 2 also indicates that using four
suppliers in the PD model will give the solution with the
least amount of late delivered material. Finally, any
solution generated by the six suppliers model can be
improved on by using either a four supplier or five
supplier alternative.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

Price versus Quality Results

Figure 1 graphically depicts the approximation of the The model was then run with varying weights on the
non-inferior boundary which resulted from running the price and quality objectives (PQ) for four (PQ4), five
Price-delivery five-model. This type of display technique (PQ5) and six (PQ6) suppliers. The number of suppliers
uses orthogonal scales to show the trade-offs which are was againfixedfor each run by specifying the right-hand
possible between two criteria based on the efficient side value for constraint[5] to be four, five or six. The
solutions generated from an MOP model. By analysing NISE method [13] was again used to generate the
these trade-offs, managers may evaluate the efficient set weights for solutions on the PQ models' convex hulls.
of solutions to develop a preferred solution. Duality gap solutions were obtained using the constraint
method [43] by optimizing on the price objective with
From Figure 1, the buyer can observe that the largest the quality objective placed as a constraint in the model.
decrease in late deliveries per increase in monetary cost The amount of rejected material was varied in
can be found by moving along the efficient frontier from increments of 10,000 units between convex hull
solution number 1 to solution number 2. For example, solutions. Table II shows the results for thefivesupplier
moving from solution number 1 to solution 10D would model.
save 101,100 units of late material (31.49 per cent) but
would cost the firm an additional $27,315 (1.23 per cent),
for a marginal decrease of 25.60 per cent in late
deliveries per percentage increase in monetary cost
Moving along the efficient frontier to the right of
solution number 2 results in a decline of this marginal
rate. Another way of looking at this is that it costs the
firm $.27($27,315/101,000 units) per unit for each of the
101,000 units that would be in solution number 2 versus
solution number 1. Thus, as the firm considers moving
from solution 1 to solution 2, it would need to decide if it
is worth $.27 per unit to avoid late deliveries on these
101,00 units. Moving from solution number 3D to
solution number 5 would save 123,990 units of late
material (41.33 per cent) but would cost the firm an
additional $59,773 (2.68 per cent). This results in a
marginal decrease of 15.42 per cent in late deliveries per
percentage increase in monetary cost, or a cost of $.482
per unit for the non-late units. Finally, moving from
solution number 4 to solution number 5 would save the
firm only 15,820 units of late material (8.25 per cent) but
would cost the firm an additional $26,824 (1.18 per cent),
a marginal decrease of only 6.99 per cent per percentage
 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING 9

Table II. Price-Quality Five-Supplier Table II indicates that the PQ5 model generated three
Model Solutions supplier/order quantity solutions on the convex hull and
seven duality gap solutions. Solution number 1 identifies
Solution Objective Weight Value Supplier number the least monetary cost, highest rejection rate
number Order quantity
(units) alternative with a cost of $2,221,790 and a rejection rate
of 182,870 units of material. Solution number 3 identifies
1 Price 1.0 $2,221,790 V1- 2,400,000
Quality 0.0001 182,870 V2- 360,000 the lowest rejection rate, highest monetary cost
V3- 0 alternative with a rejection rate of 119,367 units of
V4- 3,000,000 material and a cost of $2,246,659. Solution number 2
V5- 2,530,000
V6- 2,500,000 represents an intermediate convex hull solution with
2 Price 2.0 $2,243,548 V1- 2,400,000
monetary costs and rejection rates of $2,243,548 and
Quality 1.0 124,680 V2- 360,000 124,680 units of material. The duality gap solutions lie
V3- 2,530,000 between convex hull solutions number 1 to number 3.
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 0
V6- 2,500,000 Figure 3 graphically shows the approximation of the
3 V1- non-inferior boundary which resulted from running
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

Price 0.0001 $2,246,659 2,400,000

Quality 1.0 119,367 V2- 360,000 the PQ5 model. From Figure 3, the buyer can observe
V3- 2,783,000
V4- 2,747,000 that the largest decrease in rejections per increase
V5- 0 in monetary cost can be found by moving along
V6- 2,500,000 the efficient frontier from solution number 1 to
1D Price 1.0 $2,235,283 V1- 2,400,000 solution number 2. For example, moving from
Quality 1.0 175,000 V2- 0 solution number 1 to solution number 2 would save
V3- 576,956
V4- 3,000,000 58,190 units of rejected material (31.82 per cent) but
V5- 2,313,044 would cost thefirman additional $21,758 (0.98 per cent).
V6- 2,500,000 This translates to a cost of $.374 per unit ($21,758/58,190
2D Price 1.0 $2,237,153 V1- 2,400,000 reduction in late units), or a marginal decrease of 32.47
Quality 0.0 170,000 V2- 0 per cent in rejected material per percentage increase in
V3- 794,347
V4- 3,000,000 monetary cost. This represents a clear way for
V5- 2,095,653 management to value the price versus quality trade-off.
V6- 2,500,000 Moving along the efficient frontier to the right of
3D Price 1.0 $2,239,022 V1- 2,400,000 solution number 2 results in a slight lowering of this
Quality 0.0 165,000 V2- 0 marginal rate. For example, moving from solution
V3- 1,011,739
V4- 3,000,000 number 2 to solution number 3 would save 5,313 units of
V5- 1,878,261 rejected material (4.26 per cent) but would cost the firm
V6- 2,500,000 an additional $3,111 (0.14 per cent), resulting in a
4D Price 1.0 $2,240,892 V1- 2,400,000
Quality 0.0 160,000 V2- 0
V3- 1,229,130
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 1,660,870
V6- 2,500,000
5D Price 1.0 $2,242,762 V1- 2,400,000
Quality 0.0 155,000 V2- 0
V3- 1,446,521
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 1,443,479
V6- 2,500,000
6D Price 1.0 $2,243,547 V1- 2,400,000
Quality 0.0 152,898 V2- 0
V3- 1,537,903
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 1352,097
V6- 2,500,000
7D Price 1.0 $2,246,289 V1- 2,400,000
Quality 0.0 120,000 V2- 360,000
V3- 2,752,857
V4- 2,777,143
V5- 0
V6- 2,500,000
Note: Price = $ purchase cost
Quality=units rejected
 10 IJPD & LM 23,2
marginal decrease of 30.42 per cent in rejections per
percentage increase in monetary cost
Figure 4 shows the curves resulting from graphing the
convex hull solutions for the price-quality model with
four, five and six suppliers. Figure 4 indicates that the
five supplier solution dominates the four and six supplier
solutions in the sense that a lower price-rejection rate
alternative can be found for the five supplier model at
any weighing than that which was found for the four or
six supplier model. Figure 4 also shows that the four
supplier model gives the worst results.
Price versus Quality versus Delivery Results
The final three runs of the model were made with all
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
three objectives (price, delivery and quality) for four
(PDQ4), five (PDQ5) and six (PDQ6) suppliers. The
number of suppliers was again fixed for each run by
specifying the right-hand side value for constraint [5] to
be four, five or six. The weighing method[12] was used
to determine convex hull solutions. As in the two-
dimensional models, non-inferior, duality gap solutions
may exist within the convex hull generated by the three-
dimensional model. The constraint method [43] was
again used to find these points. Price was maintained as
the objective to be optimized while the delivery and
quality objectives were placed as constraints in the PDQ
model. The values for material delivered late and
rejected were varied in increments of 10,000 units
between convex hull solutions. Table III shows the
results for the four supplier model (PDQ4). In order to
demonstrate the multi-objective modelling approach in
three dimensions, the results of the four supplier model
(PDQ4) are discussed below.
Table III indicates that four convex hull and four duality
gap solutions were identified by the PDQ4 model.
Solution number 1 had the least monetary cost
($2,230,322) but had the highest rates of rejection
(188,270 units of material) and late deliveries (306,700
units of material). Solution number 2 identifies the
solution with the lowest rates of rejection and late
deliveries. This solution had a rejection rate of 150,661
units of material and a late delivery rate of 175,210 units
of material but had the highest monetary cost of the
three solutions ($2,292,655). This three objective
solution is more difficult to analyse than the two
objective solutions, because by paying $62,333 more, the
firm increases their on time deliveries by 131,490 units,
and simultaneously reduces rejected material by 27,609
units. The price paid for this simultaneous performance
improvement cannot be as easily allocated as when just
one performance parameter is being improved.
Solutions number 3 and number 4 resulted in
intermediate alternatives with respective monetary
costs of $2,265,499 and $2,259,755, rejection rates of
155,710 and 151,761 units of material, and late delivery
rates of 191,030 and 198,210 units of material. All four of
the duality gap solutions, number 1D to number 4D,
were also intermediate alternatives.
Analysis of Three-dimensional Results
One problem that is especially difficult when working
with multi-objective programming (MOP) in more than
two dimensions is displaying the results in a manner
meaningful for the decision maker. The orthogonal
graphing technique shown for the two dimensional
models are a particularly cumbersome way of showing
the MOP model results when there are more than two
objectives because of the number of graphs which need
to be analysed. For example, analysing the orthogonal
graphs for this three dimensional problem would result
in the decision maker attempting to analyse solution
values on three separate graphs—price versus delivery,
price versus quality, delivery versus quality. Should a
fourth objective exist, the decision maker would need to
analyse solutions on 12 separate graphs of two
dimensions; quite a formidable task.
Multi-objective value paths[16], however, use parallel
scales on a single graph to show how the solutions
simultaneously react on the various objectives in an
MOP model. As more objectives are used in the model,
the value path compensates by appending additional
axes rather than requiring additional graphs. Because of
the need for the buyer to see concisely how the MOP
solutions simultaneously consider trade-offs among
 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING 11

Table III. Price-delivery-quality Four-Supplier multiple objectives, multi-objective value paths were
Model Solutions selected as the display technique for the supplier
selection problem when more than two criteria are to be
Solution Objective Weight Value Supplier number
considered.
number Order quantity
(units) A value path showing the performance of each PDQ4
model solution is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5
1 Price 1.0 $2,230,322 V1- 2,400,000 demonstrates the efficient trade-offs which are possible
Delivery 0.0001 306,700 V2- 0 among the price, quality and delivery objectives for the
Quality 0.0001 188,270 V3- 0
four supplier scenario. Solution number 1 represents the
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,890,000
solution with the least monetary cost but the highest
V6- 2,500,000 rate of rejects and late deliveries. Solution number 2, on
the other hand, represents the solution with the highest
2 Price 0.0001 $2,292,655 V1- 0 monetary cost but the lowest rate of rejects and late
Delivery 1.0 175,210 V2- 0 deliveries. The remaining solutions are intermediate
Quality 0.0001 150,661 V 3 - 2,783,000 solutions with their objective values falling between
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

V4- 3,000,000 those in solution number 1 and solution number 2.

V5- 2,507,000
V6- 2,500,000
Value paths can also be used to portray graphically the
3 Price 0.075 $2,265,499 V1- 2,041,000 trade-offs existing among multiple solutions. Figure 6
Delivery 1.0 191,030 V2- 0 shows the best case solutions for the PDQ models when
Quality 1.0 155,710 V3- 2,783,000
the number of suppliers and the individual optimization
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,966,000
objectives were varied. For example, Figure 6 shows
V6- 0 that the lowest monetary cost can be obtained when
using five suppliers although this solution will result in a
4 Price 1.0 $2,259,755 V1- 2,400,000 relatively high number of units delivered late and units
Delivery 1.0 198,210 V2- 0 rejected. likewise, Figure 6 shows that the lowest
Quality 1.0 151,761 V3- 2,783,000 number of units delivered late can be obtained when
V4- 3,000,000 optimizing with four suppliers although this solution will
V5- 2,607,000 result in the highest monetary cost and a moderate
V6- 0 number of units rejected. Finally, the lowest number of
1D Price 1.0 $2,256,668 V1- 2,400,000 units rejected would be obtained by optimizing with five
Delivery 0.0 208,980 V2- 0 suppliers, also resulting in a moderate monetary cost
Quality 0.0 160,018 V3- 2,424,000 and a moderate number of units delivered late.
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,966,000
V6- 0

2D Price 1.0 $2,291,282 V1- 0

Delivery 0.0 180,000 V2- 0
Quality 0.0 154,333 V 3 - 2,623,333
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,666,667
V6- 2,500,000

3D Price 1.0 $2,289,163 V1- 0

Delivery 0.0 187,391 V2- 0
Quality 0.0 160,000 V 3 - 2,376,956
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,913,044
V6- 2,500,000

4D Price 1.0 $2,288,708 V1- 0

Delivery 0.0 188,980 V2- 0
Quality 0.0 161,218 V3- 2,324,000
V4- 3,000,000
V5- 2,966,000
V6- 2,500,000
 12 IJPD & LM 23,2
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
A Decision Support System for Supplier Selection
The use of computers and information systems in the
purchasing function has been the topic of discussion for
some time[11, 44-49]. More recently, decision support
systems (DSS) have been developed to support
purchasing supplier selection[39,50,51,52].
Based on the firm's technical environment, a decision
support system was developed for running the models
discussed above. The following hardware and software
serve as the technical basis for the DSS:
(1) The developmental hardware unit was an IBM
PC XT utilizing an 8086 chip with no math co-
processor. This unit was virtually compatible with
the test firm's IBM AT unit except that it had
considerably slower processing speed.
(2) LOTUS 1-2-3 (Lotus Development Corporation)
spreadsheet software (version 2.1) was used for
data input and reporting the results of individual
model runs.
(3) The What's Best-Personal Version (General
Optimization Inc.) package was used to solve the
optimization models. The Personal Version
allows a maximum of 42 binary variables, 200
constraints and 4,000 coefficients. These
restrictions equate to maximally solving a 42
supplier problem for the JITMOVS model. The
What's Best package can use LOTUS 1-2-3
spreadsheets (among others) as the medium for
both data input and reporting the results of
individual model runs.
Using the above developmental system configuration,
the models required between 25 and 100 optimization
(branch-and-bound) iterations with running times
varying between two and five minutes depending on
whether a similar basis was used as a starting point
for optimization. These times are expected to decrease
significantly when the models are run on today's
faster computers.
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to demonstrate the
benefits of applying a multi-objective mathematical
programming model in a decision support context for
supplier selection. While this was demonstrated for a
firm practising JIT manufacturing, it has wide
applications across all type's of supplier selection
decisions. For thefirmdiscussed here, price, quality and
delivery were all seen as important criteria to be
considered for the supplier selection process. However,
multi-objective programming is flexible in the criteria it
uses, as long as the criteria basically can be quantified.
By varying the weights of the criteria in the multi-
objective model, a set of alternative solutions (i.e.
supplier/order-quantity combinations) can be found
which quantifies the efficient trade-offs. Further, a
varying number of criteria can be used.Witha greater
number of criteria, the model will run longer, and the
solution analysis will become more complex. Thus, the
model allows for a great deal of flexibility.
An important practical aspect of the multi-objective
decision support system is that it does not provide one
solution, but rather a number of "best-compromise"
solutions for the buyer to choose from. Thus, buyer's
expert judgement is still critical in the decision-making
process. Indeed, the buyer's judgement should be
enhanced by the ability to simultaneously view the
outcome of alternative decisions.
Yet another benefit of multi-objective decision support
systems is that such a system simultaneously solves for
suppliers selected and volume to be allocated among
those suppliers. The models also allow for consideration
of different numbers of suppliers, if thefirmis interested
in limiting the minimum or maximum number of
suppliers in the solution.
Thus, while a multi-objective decision support system is
very flexible, it also provides a great deal of consistency
in the decision-making process. The consistency comes
by putting the decision in a formalized model, using the
same decision criteria and type of information for each
supplier.
 SUPPLIER SELECTION USING MULTI-OBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING 13
A multi-objective decision support system can easily
accommodate sensitivity or "what if" analysis by
changing values of key decision criteria. Further, the use
of value paths to display multi-objective alternative "best-
compromise" solutions allows the decision maker to
readily understand the implications of trading off one
decision criteria against another.
The supplier selection decision in today's increasingly
complex, competitive global environment is inherently
multi-objective in nature. Increased demands on, and
expectations of, the firm's supplier creates the need for
careful analysis of supplier selection and volume
allocation decisions. Yet, judgement is still required to
take into account the trade-offs which likely exist among
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
key criteria in supplier selection.
The multi-objective programming decision support
system is a model that provides such capabilities. In
addition, because this model uses standard personal
computer hardware and relatively inexpensive software,
minimal investment is required. As such, multi-objective
decision support systems could be an important tool for
the purchasing function in the 1990s and beyond.
References
1. Ansari, A. and Modarress, B., "Just-in-Time
Purchasing: Problems and Solutions", Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, Summer 1986, pp. 11-15.
2. Burton, T.T., "JIT/Repetitive Sourcing Strategies:
'Tying the Knot' With Your Suppliers", Production
and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4,
4th quarter, 1988, pp. 38-41.
3. Hahn, C.K., Pinto, P.A. and Bragg, D.J., "'Just-in-
Time' Production and Purchasing", Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
Autumn 1983, pp. 2-10.
4. Manoochehri, G.H., "Suppliers and the Just-in-Time
Concept", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, Winter 1984, pp. 16-21.
5. Newman, R.G. and Scodro, J., "Price Analysis for
Negotiation", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, Spring 1988, pp. 8-14.
6. Dickson, G.W., "An Analysis of Vendor Selection
Systems and Decisions", Journal of Purchasing,
Vol. 2 No. 1, February 1966, pp. 5-17.
7. Wind, Y. and Robinson, P.J., "The Determinants of
Vendor Selection: The Evaluation Function
Approach", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, August 1968, pp. 29-41.
8. Dempsey, W.A., "Vendor Selection and the Buying
Process", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 7
No. 4, 1978, pp. 257-67.
9. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R. and Benton, W.C.,
"Vendor Selection Criteria and Methods", European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, Januar
1991, pp. 2-18.
10. Timmerman, E., "An Approach to Vendor Performance
Evaluation", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, Winter 1986, pp. 2-8.
11. Moore, D.L. and Fearon, H.E., "Computer-assisted
Decision-making in Purchasing", Journal of
Purchasing, Vol. 9 No. 4, November 1973, pp. 5-25.
12. Zadeh, L., "Optimality and Non-scalar-Valued
Performance Criteria, IEEE Transaction Automatic
Control, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1963, p. 59.
13. Cohon, J.L., Church,R.L.and Sheer, D.P., "Generating
Multiobjective Trade-offs: An Algorithm for
Bicriterion Problems", Water Resources Research
Vol. 15 No. 5, October 1979, pp. 1001-10.
14. Cohon, J.L., Multiobjective Programming and
Planning, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978.
15. Schilling, D.A., "Dynamic Location Modeling for
Public-sector Facilities: A Multicriteria Approach",
Decision Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 4, 1980, pp. 714-24.
16. Schilling, D.A., Revelle, C. and Cohon, J., "An
Approach to the Display and Analysis of Multi-
objective Problems", Socio-Economic Planning Scienc
Vol. 17 No. 2, 1983, pp. 57-63.
17. Storbeck, J.E., "Slack, Natural Slack, and Location
Covering", Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,
Vol. 16 No. 3, 1982, pp. 99-105.
18. Storbeck, J.E. and Vohra, R.V., "A Simple Trade-off
Model for Maximal and Multiple Coverage", Ohio
State University College of Business Working
Paper Series, WPS 87-87, July 1987.
19. Current, J.R., Cohon, J.L. and Revelle, C.S., "The
Shortest Covering Path Problem: An Application of
Locational Constraints to Network Design", Journal
of Regional Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1984, pp. 161-83.
20. Current, J.R., ReVelle, C.S. and Cohon, J.L., "The
Application of Location Models to the Multi-objective
Design of Transportation Networks", Regional Science
Review, No. 14, 1985.
21. Current, J.R., ReVelle, C.S. and Cohon, J.L., "The
Maximum Covering/Shortest Path Problem:
A Multiobjective Network Design and Routing
Formulation", European Journal of Operations
Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1985, pp. 189-99.
22. Rider, K.L., "A Parametric Model for the Allocation
of Fire Companies in New York City", Management
Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, 1976, pp. 146-58.
23. Armstrong, R.D. and Cook, W.D., "Goal
Programming Models for Assigning Search and
Rescue Aircraft to Bases", Journal of Operations
Research Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, 1979, pp. 555-61.
 14 IJPD & LM 23,2
24. Friesz, T.L., Tourreilles, F.A. and Han, A.F.,
"Multi-criteria Optimization Methods in Transport
Project Evaluation: The Case of Rural Roads in
Developing Countries", Proceedings—Transportation
Research Forum Twentieth Annual Meeting, No. 20,
1979, pp. 389-98.
25. Tamakloe, E.K.A., "Spatial Equity in Regional
Transportation Investment Policies", Traffic Quarterly,
Vol. 34 No. 4, 1980, pp. 605-26.
26. Leinbach,T.R.and Cromley, R., "A Goal Programming
Approach to Public Investment Decisions: A Case
Study of Rural Roads in Indonesia", Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1, 1983, pp. 1-10.
27. Major, D., "Benefit-cost Ratios for Projects in
Multiple Objective Investment Programs", Water
Resources Research, Vol. 5 No. 6, 1969, pp. 1174-8.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)
28. Current, J. and Min, H., "Multiobjective Design
of Transportation Networks: Taxonomy and
Annotation", European Journal of Operations Research,
Vol.26, 1986, pp. 187-201.
29. Current, J., Min, H. and Schilling, D., "Multi-
objective Analysis of Facility Location Decisions",
Ohio State University College of Business Working
Paper Series, WPS 90-40, May 1990.
30. Hwang, C.L. and Masud, A.S.M., Multiple Objective
Decision Making — Methods and Applications,
Springer, New York, NY, 1989.
31. Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision
Making: Methods and Applications, Springer,
NewYork,NY, 1981.
32. ReVelle, C., Cohon, J.L. and Shobys, D., "Multiple
Objectives in Facility Location: A Review", in
Beckmann M. and Kunzi A.P. (Eds), Lecture Notes
in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Berlin,
1981, pp. 321-37.
33. Zanakis, S.H. and Gupta, S.K., "A Categorized
Bibliographic Review of Goal Programming", Omega-
International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, 1985, pp. 211-22.
34. Anthony, T.F. and Buffa, F.P., "Strategic Purchase
Scheduling", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, Autumn 1977, pp. 27-31.
35. Kingsman, B.G., "Purchasing Raw Materials with
Uncertain Fluctuating Prices", European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, 1986, pp. 358-72.
36. Pan, A.C., "Allocation of Order Quantity Among
Suppliers", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, Autumn 1989, pp. 36-9.
37. Gaballa, A.A., "Minimum Cost Allocation of Tenders",
Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, 1974,
pp. 389-98.
Charles A. Weber is on faculty at George Washington University, Washington DC, USA; and Lisa M. Ellram is
Assistant Professor of Purchasing and Logistics Management at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
38. Bender, P.S., Brown, R.W., Isaac, M.H. and Shapiro,
J.F., "Improving Purchasing Productivity at IBM with
a Normative Decision Support System", Interfaces,
Vol. 15 No. 3, May-June 1985, pp. 106-15.
39. Turner, I., "An Independent System for the Evaluation
of Contract Tenders", Journal of Operational Research
Society, Vol. 39 No. 6, 1988, pp. 551-61.
40. Buffa, F.P. and Jackson, W.M., "A Goal Programming
Model for Purchase Planning", Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
Autumn 1983, pp. 27 34.
41. Sharma, D., Benton, W.C. and Srivastava, R.,
"Competitive Strategy and Purchasing Decisions",
Proceedings of the 1989 Annual Conference of the
Decision Sciences Institute, pp. 1088-90.
42. Weber, C.A. and Current, J.R., "A Multiobjective
Approach to Vendor Selection", European Journal
of Operational Research, 1992.
43. Marglin, S., Public Investment Criteria, MIT Press,
Cambridge,MA,1967.
44. Elliott, C., "Purchasing Attitudes Toward EDP",
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
Vol. 12 No. 2, Summer 1976, pp. 23-5.
45. Cone, R.J., "Purchasing in the New Computer
Environment", Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, Summer 1978, pp. 24.
46. Lyons, P.J., "Better Purchasing through Information
Systems Maintenance", Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, Winter 1979,
pp. 16-19.
47. Parasuraman, A., "Use of Computers in Purchasing:
An Empirical Study", Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, Spring 1981,
pp. 10-14.
48. Shore, B., "A Micro-Computer Based Purchasing
Information System", Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, Summer 1981,
pp. 8-12.
49. Mazurak, R.E., Rao, S.R. and Scotton, D.W.,
"Spreadsheet Software Applications in Purchasing",
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, Winter 1985, pp. 8-16.
50. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. and Shakun, M.F., "Decision
Support Systems for Semi-structured Buying
Decisions", European Journal of Operations Research,
Vol. 16 No. 1, 1984, pp. 48-58.
51. Levy, M., Cron, W. and Novack, R., "A Decision
Support System for Determining a Quantitative
Discount Pricing Policy", Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1985, pp. 110-41.
52. Ronen, B. and Trietsch, D., "A Decision Support
System for Purchasing Management of Large
Projects", Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 6,
November-December 1988, pp. 882-90.
 This article has been cited by:

1. R. Rajesh, V. Ravi. 2015. Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: a grey relational analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production 86, 343-359. [CrossRef]
2. Jian Zhou, Fan Yang, Ke Wang. 2014. Multi-objective optimization in uncertain random environments. Fuzzy Optimization
and Decision Making 13, 397-413. [CrossRef]
3. Jamil Razmak, Belaid Aouni. 2014. Decision Support System and Multi-Criteria Decision Aid: A State of the Art and
Perspectives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
4. Amol Singh. 2014. Supplier evaluation and demand allocation among suppliers in a supply chain. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 20, 167-176. [CrossRef]
5. Jafar Rezaei, Patrick Badredin Maximilian Fahim, Lori Tavasszy. 2014. Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using
a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications . [CrossRef]
6. Federico Caniato, Stefano Ronchi, Davide Luzzini, Olimpio Brivio. 2014. Total cost of ownership along the supply chain: a
model applied to the tinting industry. Production Planning & Control 1-11. [CrossRef]
7. Jingjing Ding, Wei Dong, Gongbing Bi, Liang Liang. 2014. A decision model for supplier selection in the presence of dual-
role factors. Journal of the Operational Research Society . [CrossRef]
8. Shasha Lu, Xingliang Guan, Min Zhou, Yang Wang. 2014. Land Resources Allocation Strategies in an Urban Area Involving
Uncertainty: A Case Study of Suzhou, in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Environmental Management 53, 894-912.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

9. Rajeev Jain, A. R. Singh, H. C. Yadav, P. K. Mishra. 2014. Using data mining synergies for evaluating criteria at pre-
qualification stage of supplier selection. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 25, 165-175. [CrossRef]
10. Tunjo Perić, Zoran Babić, Ivica Veža. 2013. Vendor selection and supply quantities determination in a bakery by AHP and
fuzzy multi-criteria programming. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26, 816-829. [CrossRef]
11. Dexiang Wu, Desheng Dash Wu, Yidong Zhang, David L. Olson. 2013. Supply chain outsourcing risk using an integrated
stochastic-fuzzy optimization approach. Information Sciences 235, 242-258. [CrossRef]
12. Srinivas Talluri, Hugo A. DeCampos, G. Tomas M. Hult. 2013. Supplier Rationalization: A Sourcing Decision Model.
Decision Sciences 44:10.1111/deci.2013.44.issue-1, 57-86. [CrossRef]
13. Liyang Tang. 2013. Helping the decision maker effectively promote various experts’ views into various optimal solutions to
China’s institutional problem of health care provider selection through the organization of a pilot health care provider research
system. Health Research Policy and Systems 11, 11. [CrossRef]
14. Jafar Rezaei, Mansoor Davoodi. 2012. A joint pricing, lot-sizing, and supplier selection model. International Journal of
Production Research 50, 4524-4542. [CrossRef]
15. Abraham Mendoza, José A. Ventura. 2012. Analytical models for supplier selection and order quantity allocation. Applied
Mathematical Modelling 36, 3826-3835. [CrossRef]
16. Avi Herbon, Shalom Moalem, Haim Shnaiderman, Joseph Templeman. 2012. Dynamic weights approach for off‐line
sequencing of supplier selection over a finite planning horizon. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 42:5, 434-463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Xiaojin Zhang, C.K.M. Lee, Songlin Chen. 2012. Supplier evaluation and selection: a hybrid model based on DEAHP and
ABC. International Journal of Production Research 50, 1877-1889. [CrossRef]
18. Moon-Soo Shin, San-Gil Lee, Kwang-Yeo Ryu, Jae-Koo Joo. 2012. Assessment Model of Core Manufacturability to Promote
Collaboration of Small and Medium Sized Mold Companies. IE interfaces 25, 52-63. [CrossRef]
19. Charlene Xie (Guest Editor in Chief ), Professor Chimay J. Anumba (Guest Editor), Professor Tzong‐Ru Lee (Guest Editor),
David L. Olson, Desheng Wu. 2011. Risk management models for supply chain: a scenario analysis of outsourcing to China.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:6, 401-408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Mohsen Jafari Songhori, Madjid Tavana, Ali Azadeh, Mohammad Hossien Khakbaz. 2011. A supplier selection and order
allocation model with multiple transportation alternatives. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
52, 365-376. [CrossRef]
21. JOSHUA IGNATIUS, ADLI MUSTAFA, MUHAMAD JANTAN, CHEE PENG LIM, T. RAMAYAH, JASMINE YEAP
AI LEEN. 2011. A MULTI-OBJECTIVE SENSITIVITY APPROACH TO TRAINING PROVIDERS' EVALUATION
AND QUOTA ALLOCATION PLANNING. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 10,
147-174. [CrossRef]
22. Arijit Bhattacharya, John Geraghty, Paul Young. 2010. Supplier selection paradigm: An integrated hierarchical QFD
methodology under multiple-criteria environment. Applied Soft Computing 10, 1013-1027. [CrossRef]
23. Darshit Parmar, Teresa Wu, Tom Callarman, John Fowler, Philip Wolfe. 2010. A clustering algorithm for supplier base
management. International Journal of Production Research 48, 3803-3821. [CrossRef]
 24. Eiichi Taniguchi, Russell G. Thompson, Tadashi Yamada. 2010. Incorporating risks in City Logistics. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2, 5899-5910. [CrossRef]
25. Xinxing Luo, Chong Wu, Duska Rosenberg, David Barnes. 2009. Supplier selection in agile supply chains: An information-
processing model and an illustration. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 15, 249-262. [CrossRef]
26. Y H Yang, Y V Hui, L C Leung, G Chen. 2009. An analytic network process approach to the selection of logistics service
providers for air cargo. Journal of the Operational Research Society . [CrossRef]
27. Anthony Ross, Frank P. Buffa. 2009. Supplier post performance evaluation: the effects of buyer preference weight variance.
International Journal of Production Research 47, 4351-4371. [CrossRef]
28. Desheng Wu. 2009. Supplier selection: A hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network. Expert Systems with
Applications 36, 9105-9112. [CrossRef]
29. Liang‐Chuan Wu. 2009. Supplier selection under uncertainty: a switching options perspective. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 109:2, 191-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Chuda Basnet, Andres Weintraub. 2009. A genetic algorithm for a bicriteria supplier selection problem. International
Transactions in Operational Research 16:10.1111/itor.2009.16.issue-2, 173-187. [CrossRef]
31. Sabine Matook, Rainer Lasch, Rick Tamaschke. 2009. Supplier development with benchmarking as part of a comprehensive
supplier risk management framework. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:3, 241-267. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
32. Ram Narasimhan, Srinivas Talluri, Santosh Mahapatra. 2008. Effective response to RFQs and supplier development: A
supplier's perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 115, 461-470. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

33. Amir Sanayei, S. Farid Mousavi, M.R. Abdi, Ali Mohaghar. 2008. An integrated group decision-making process for supplier
selection and order allocation using multi-attribute utility theory and linear programming. Journal of the Franklin Institute
345, 731-747. [CrossRef]
34. Desheng Wu, David L. Olson. 2008. Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection. International Journal of Production
Economics 114, 646-655. [CrossRef]
35. Dog¨an Özgen, Semih Önüt, Bahadır Gülsün, Umut Rıfat Tuzkaya, Gülfem Tuzkaya. 2008. A two-phase possibilistic linear
programming methodology for multi-objective supplier evaluation and order allocation problems. Information Sciences 178,
485-500. [CrossRef]
36. Ceyhun Araz, Pinar Mizrak Ozfirat, Irem Ozkarahan. 2007. An integrated multicriteria decision-making methodology for
outsourcing management. Computers & Operations Research 34, 3738-3756. [CrossRef]
37. Felix T.S. Chan, Niraj Kumar. 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based
approach. Omega 35, 417-431. [CrossRef]
38. Andreas P. Kakouris, George Polychronopoulos, Spyros Binioris. 2006. Outsourcing decisions and the purchasing process: a
systems‐oriented approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:7, 708-729. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ram Narasimhan, Srinivas Talluri, Santosh K. Mahapatra. 2006. Multiproduct, Multicriteria Model for Supplier Selection
with Product Life-Cycle Considerations. Decision Sciences 37:10.1111/deci.2006.37.issue-4, 577-603. [CrossRef]
40. Jin Ho Choi, Yong Sik Chang. 2006. A two-phased semantic optimization modeling approach on supplier selection in
eProcurement. Expert Systems with Applications 31, 137-144. [CrossRef]
41. Roland Y.G. Lim, Tim Baines, Benny Tjahjono, Watcharavee Chandraprakaikul. 2006. Integrated strategic supply chain
positioning for SMEs: an empirical study. The International Journal of Logistics Management 17:2, 260-276. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
42. Srinivas Talluri, Ram Narasimhan, Anand Nair. 2006. Vendor performance with supply risk: A chance-constrained DEA
approach. International Journal of Production Economics 100, 212-222. [CrossRef]
43. R. K. Singh, S. Kumar, A. K. Choudhury, M. K. Tiwari. 2006. Lean tool selection in a die casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision
support heuristic. International Journal of Production Research 44, 1399-1429. [CrossRef]
44. M. Bevilacqua, F.E. Ciarapica, G. Giacchetta. 2006. A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 12, 14-27. [CrossRef]
45. S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan. 2005. A Note on “A Methodology for Supply Base Optimization”. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 52, 130-139. [CrossRef]
46. OBOULHAS CONRAD TSAHAT ONESIME, XIAOFEI XU, DECHEN ZHAN. 2004. A DECISION SUPPORT
SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIER SELECTION PROCESS. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making
03, 453-470. [CrossRef]
47. Srinivas Talluri, Ram Narasimhan. 2004. A methodology for strategic sourcing. European Journal of Operational Research
154, 236-250. [CrossRef]
 48. Cengiz Kahraman, Ufuk Cebeci, Ziya Ulukan. 2003. Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information
Management 16:6, 382-394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Ferhan Çebi, Demet Bayraktar. 2003. An integrated approach for supplier selection. Logistics Information Management 16:6,
395-400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. A. Hammami, P. Burlat, J.P. Campagne. 2003. Evaluating orders allocation within networks of firms. International Journal
of Production Economics 86, 233-249. [CrossRef]
51. Srinivas Talluri, Ram Narasimhan. 2003. Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max–min approach. European
Journal of Operational Research 146, 543-552. [CrossRef]
52. L. de Boer, L.L.M van der Wegen. 2003. Practice and promise of formal supplier selection: a study of four empirical cases.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 9, 109-118. [CrossRef]
53. Joseph Sarkis, Srinivas Talluri. 2002. A Model for Strategic Supplier Selection. The Journal of Supply Chain Management
38:10.1111/jscm.2002.38.issue-1, 18-28. [CrossRef]
54. Srinivas Talluri. 2002. A buyer–seller game model for selection and negotiation of purchasing bids. European Journal of
Operational Research 143, 171-180. [CrossRef]
55. Khurrum S. Bhutta, Faizul Huq. 2002. Supplier selection problem: a comparison of the total cost of ownership and analytic
hierarchy process approaches. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 7:3, 126-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Birsen Karpak, Erdoğan Kumcu, Rammohan R. Kasuganti. 2001. Purchasing materials in the supply chain: managing a multi-
objective task. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7, 209-216. [CrossRef]
57. Ram Narasimhan, Srinivas Talluri, David Mendez. 2001. Supplier Evaluation and Rationalization via Data Envelopment
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:36 29 December 2014 (PT)

Analysis: An Empirical Examination. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 37:10.1111/jscm.2001.37.issue-3, 28-37.
[CrossRef]
58. Luitzen de Boer, Eva Labro, Pierangela Morlacchi. 2001. A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal
of Purchasing & Supply Management 7, 75-89. [CrossRef]
59. Marcello Braglia, Alberto Petroni. 2000. A quality assurance‐oriented methodology for handling trade‐offs in supplier
selection. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30:2, 96-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Alberto Petroni, Marcello Braglia. 2000. Vendor Selection Using Principal Component Analysis. The Journal of Supply Chain
Management 36:10.1111/jscm.2000.36.issue-2, 63-69. [CrossRef]
61. Sean B. Eom, Hokey Min. 1999. The contributions of multi-criteria decision making to the development of
decision support systems subspecialties: an empirical investigation. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1360(199909)8:5<>1.0.CO;2-H, 239-255. [CrossRef]
62. Tai-Hsi Wu, Chia-Chi Tsao, Tsu-Hong Yen. 1999. ####################. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial
Engineers 16, 495-506. [CrossRef]
63. Birsen Karpak, Erdoğan Kumcu, Rammohan Kasuganti. 1999. An application of visual interactive goal
programming: a case in vendor selection decisions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1360(199903)8:2<>1.0.CO;2-Q, 93-105. [CrossRef]
64. Mohammed Abdur Razzaque, Chang Chen Sheng. 1998. Outsourcing of logistics functions: a literature survey. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28:2, 89-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Charles A. Weber. 1996. A data envelopment analysis approach to measuring vendor performance. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 1:1, 28-39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Ezgi Aktar Demirtas, Ozden UstunRecent Developments in Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Process 1532-1553.
[CrossRef]