2009 Fifth International Conference on Natural Computation
A Study on Supplier Evaluation in Product Research & development
Based on Agile Manufacture
JIANG Jian-hua XU Chang-jun ZHENG Xin
Industrial EngineeringˈTsinghua University
Beijing, China
e-mail: jjhtom@163.com
Abstract
In agile manufacture system ,the strategic focus of
enterprises is shifting from the traditional model in
production to a created model due to the changes in
the manufacturing environment, more enterprises cut
across the boundary of enterprises to develop new
products with the joint quantitative enterprisers in
Agile Manufacture . Hegemony enterprise needs a
rapid & synthetic qualitative &quantitative evaluation
and selection method for potential suppliers in the
supply chain. This paper integrates the DEA-based
objective method and the ANP-based subjective
method in a new decision model for ANP&DEA based
supplier evaluation. The paper explains the
mathematical analysis in the specific case of a
product-end manufacturer to confirm the model.
Keywords: Agile Manufacture, Product Research &
Development Supplier Evaluation, Data
Envelopment Analysis, Analytic Network Process
1. Introduction
The agile manufacture is one kind of fast
restructuring product production pattern, it is through
the nimble Virtual Organization or the dynamic
alliance, the advanced flexible production technology
and the high quality personnel to carry on the
comprehensive information integration [1], thus can
fast response market product development ability,
achieved the scale production the efficiency and the
cost meet the personalized need the goal.
In the automobile manufacture, the product
innovation and the agile Supply Chain has become the
enterprise modern competition the key, turns towards
the network, the integration, the agile direction in
978-0-7695-3736-8/09 $25.00 © 2009 IEEE 50
DOI 10.1109/ICNC.2009.515
recent years along with the automobile manufacture
develops, between the big some automobile main
engine manufacturer and the spare part manufacturer
relations have also had the very big change along with
it, namely mainly manifests in the main engine factory
and the spare part factory establishment strategy
partner relations and the global network purchase
system formation, will possess outside the spare part
the package to give the spare part manufacturer;
Especially in the new product development project,
carries on the product development using supplier's
technical superiority the entire process.
The author take the automobile product research
and development manufacture as an example,
elaborated the establishment product researches and
develops the entire process the effective appraisal
model, further has dodged the research and
development project risk, sped up the product research
and development project success implementation.
2. Evaluation flow in product research &
development supplier
The product research & development supplier
appraisal and the traditional significance supplier
appraises have very greatly different. The traditional
significance supplier appraises on the attention weighty
targets in priceǃ quality and so on, but the product
innovation supplier pays great attention to target in the
product innovation ,choosing the supplier which not
only can complete the task in the new product
development process assigns, but also can achieve the
product innovation goal in the shortest time, namely in
the shortest time cycle and the superior product is
made by the lowest cost and high quality to conform
the market demand , enhancing the manufacturer and
supplier core competitive ability, supplies in the chain
the buyer and the suppliers all takes the customer
demand the direct power. the customer demands as the
direct driving power. The competition advantages of
the enterprise rely on the all members competition on
kernel, efficiency, quality, service agility, cost and so
on. Furthermore, the superiorities also rely on the
match level between the market competition
environment on efficiency, quality, service and agility
outside of the enterprises and the market demand level.
Purchaser should know rapidly the real reciprocal
kernel advantage of suppliers and start to turn into
deep co-operation with the selected suppliers.
We knew product research & development appraisal
process is a dynamic evolution, simultaneously a
feedback process, the entire appraisal process may
divide into 4 stages to carry on, namely rough selection
in supplier, fine selection, fining and confirmation as
well as tracking whole evaluation. In corresponds to
the process research & development appraisal has 4
steps, namely the feasible filtration, the Pareto
evaluation, the degree of satisfaction appraisal and the
research object of DEA method is Decision Making
Units (DMU). By comparing with a set of common
character DMU and combining the DMU’s inputs and
output in linear, we can get the envelop surface of
effective activities to compare each DMU’s relative
validity. The supplier candidate can be used as the
decision-making unit. Supposed that there are n
suppliers, and there are p types input and q types
output for each supplier, we can get the basic DEA
evaluation model:
q
¦u
k =1
k y kj
max h j = ˄1˅
p
¦v x i ij
i =1
Comments from Reviewer 2 :English and content is
desired to be polished. I could not recognize the
original contribution in this paper. “m” in eq.(1) may
be mistyped or used without explanation
q

cooperation effect appraisal, as shown in Figure 1 [2]: ¦u k ykj

s.t. k =1
p
≤ 1 ˈ j = 1,2, " , n
¦v x
i =1
i ij

u ≥ 0, v ≥ 0
y j the output evaluate target of supplier j
p the number of the target y j 
x j the input evaluation target of supplier j
q  number of target x j 
u, v weights of evaluation target
For solving the equation 1 in convenience, we use
Charnes-Cooper transform and get the linear
programming model:
q
′
max h j = ¦ u k y kj ˄2˅
k =1
p q

Figure 1. Product research & development supplier

s.t. ¦ vi xij = 1 ˗ ¦ u k y kj ≤ 1
i =1 k =1
evaluation flow
q p

3. Establishment of supplier evaluation ¦u

model
3.1. Based on DEA-quantitative evaluation
3.1.1. Basic DEA model. Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) method and model were presented by Professor
Charnes A. and Cooper W. in 1978 [3]. The element
k =1
k y kr − ¦ vi xir ≤ 0 ˈ (r = 1,2, " , n)
i =1
vi ≥ 0 ˈ u k ≥ 0
In the model, the weights which corresponding with
each input vector and output vector were decided by
the optimizing the effective index. The model helps us
to deal with the problem of unclear weight information

51
within the inputs and outputs, and prevent the weight competitive factors. Then each factor is defined
from being given by personal subjectivity. relative weightiness in the same layer by using pair
comparison. At last, the best result from all the
3.1.2. Cone rate C2WH model with decision-making selective plans is judged by the overall subjective
preference restraint. Considered that purchaser usually criteria.
have the obvious decision-making preference for For the confirmation of targets weightiness in AHP
supplier selection in practice we can update the basic method is based on the pair comparison for the factors,
DEA model and choose the cone rate C2WH model it is easy to produce the shortage of “rank reversal”
with decision-making preference restraint as the actual phenomena. Furthermore, there exist the phenomena
DEA analysis model. For decision-making unit that factors in the lower layer are also feed back to that
DMU0 ∈ {DMU j }ˈwe get its C WH model:
2
in the upper layer. Saaty then presented the method of
ANP to reflect the influence or conjunction between
q
the factors by the tool of super matrix.
″
max h j = ¦ u j y kj = V ′ ˄3˅
k =1
q p
s.t. ¦ u k y kr − ¦ vi xir ∈ K (r = 1,2,", n)
k =1 i =1
p

¦v x
i =1
i ij =1

In equation 3, V ⊂ R+p ˈ U ⊂ R+q ˈ K ⊂ R+n are

closed protruding cone, and InvV ≠ Φ ˈ InvU ≠ Φ .
Here we select difference weight power to evaluate
suppliers and analysis the results, and find the satisfied Figure 2. The structure of AHP model
supplier.
3.2.2. Product R&D appraisal procedure based on
3.1.3. The weakness of the DEA-based supplier ANP and DEA integration. Whereas the characters
evaluation method. Although the DEA-based supplier of ANP and DEA mentioned above, we build up a
evaluation method made the overall efficiency of rapidly effective evaluation system through the
suppliers more impersonal, the meticulous selection for integration by the preference decision-making
the weight powers made the supplier, which has impersonality calculation and subjective analysis in the
advantage in a little targets but disadvantage in other selection process. In detail, the process includes 3
numerous targets, being the relative valid gainer. Thus, steps:
it is necessary to introduce the intelligence criterion
gUse the ANP-based model to evaluate the supplier
into the decision-making process. We select the
co-operation target and calculate its relative
methods of Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and
weightiness;
Analytic Network Process (ANP) as the intelligence
criterion to make up the weakness of DEA in the gUse the DEA model to evaluate the DMU’s validity;
evaluation process. gUse the weighted math means to get synthesized
weighting:
3.2. Product R&D appraisal system based on w* = αϖ + (1−α ) Ψ (4)
ANP and DEA integration ∗
w : synthesized weighting:
3.2.1. Introduce of ANP method. The AHP method α : subjective coefficient
which presented by Saaty T. in 1970 is both a decision- 1 − α :objective coefficient
making mode and a measure process to quantitative ϖ : weighting of means in ANP
express the degree of better or worse to the selected Ψ : weighting of means in DEA
plan in a definite rule [4]. As Figure 2 shows, AHP α ∈ [0,1] , date of α is given by the liking in designer
method is used to decompose a complex question into
multi-factors, and form a sequence class hierarchy
according to the hegemony relationship between the 4. Case study

52
 A Chinese automobile manufacture enterprise, process for the super matrix and repeat 2k+1 times
based on market-oriented technical idea, has promoted evolvements ( k ė + Ğ ). When the evolvements
one type of vehicle in view of certain group of arrives M42, the result comes to the consistency and
customers’ need. Its research & development process is forms a long-term steady matrix, as shown in table 1-2.
based on dynamic alliance idea of the agile
manufacture to select qualified innovation team. Its 4.2. Foundation on the appraisal model-
objective intends to control the cost, enhance the profit ANP&DEA
as well as the fast delivery market, and consider
promoting the global market competitive power as the synthesizing index in ANP for each supplier in
main purpose. product research and development is added by the
value of each subsystem on weighted index. The
synthesis appraisal index is the sum of each single
appraisal index which is composed of item target
weighted value of enterprise. The weighted value is
obtained through the ANP method and the formula in
mathematical expression is equal to single item target
of each various enterprise, (The formula is previously
existed) which is multiplied by each target weight
value (Table 2), namely calculated by 16 index value.
We select 30 suppliers, and through the appraisal
system, finally only 9 suppliers whose indexes are
better than others have been obtained. Meanwhile, all
the efficiency results of the 9 suppliers in DEA
analysis are 1. In order to compare the weight, we
carry on the ultra efficiency analysis (Table 3)
Table 3 9 out of 30 suppliers DEA ultra efficiency analysis
1R 1DPH 6XSHU(IILFLHQF\ %HQFKPDUV
 $  
 $  
 $  
 $  
 $  
 $  
 $  

Figure 3. Network structure of the research and  $  

development evaluation  $  
 $  
4.1. Establishment network analysis structure-
ANP
According to the experts’ determination and the
practice confirmation, the subjective coefficient is 0.6
In according to the analysis above, we proposed
and the objective coefficient is 0.4. According to the
based on the ANP&DEA product research and
comprehensive weight formula (formula4, 9 suppliers
development appraisal system. In this system, we
to synthesize the weight value is obtained (Table 4)
choose the demand design, the concept development,
In according to the appraisal result from 9 suppliers,
the system design, the detailing, the prototype design
finally 6 suppliers are selected to enter the team in
take the cooperation the major targets or quotas. The
product research and development. At the same time,
product promotion is taken as the target stratum- the
these 6 suppliers in manufacture industry have their
demand design, the concept development, the system
advanced technology.
design, the detailing, the prototype design as the
appraisal factor, between these factor correlative Table 4 appraisal model (DEANP) analysis& taxis
dependence like figure3. According to the calculate

53
supplier W ANP W DEA
60%W ANP + 40%W DEA taxis stages of new product development. The integration of
the two evaluation methods is achieved as well.
A1 0.687363 1.17100 0.879 9
A2 0.68886 1.18037 0.886 7
A3 0.763186 1.07878 0.889 6 6. References
A5 0.689977 1.19100 0.890 5
A8 0.798093 1.05047 0.899 4 [1] D. Wang, Agile Manufacturing - ERP & Strategic
A9 0.759612 1.30299 0.977 1 Optimization, Mechanical Industry Publication, Beijing,
A15 0.777992 1.09688 0.906 2 2003.
A16 0.762547 1.06835 0.885 8
A18 0.745724 1.08132 0.890 3
[2] X. Zhao, L. Sun, Supplier Management in Product
Innovation, Tsinghua University Publication, Beijing, 2005
5. Conclusion
[3] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, R.M. Thrall. “ A structure for
It is important to introduce the theory of supplier classifying and characterizing efficiencies in data
with product innovation into improving progress of envelopment analysis”. Journal of Productivity Analysis,
1991, vol. 2, pp. 197-237.
supply chain. Combined with the knowledge of
economics, management, system engineering and [4] D.C. Liu, L. Zheng, et al. “Construct on virtual enterprise
application mathematics, the study established the in the agile supply system for the machine-tool enterprise”,
corresponding supplier choice system according to the Manufacturing Technology and Machine Tool, 1999, vol. 10,
different evaluation system required by the different pp. 18-20.

Table 1 network criterion under (A) matrix analysis

Table 2 ultra matrix evolution based on control criterion



54