Yeşil tedarikçi seçimi için birleştirilmiş bir DEMATEL-QFD-AT2 BAHP yaklaşımı

Tedarik zinciri sisteminin temel amacı kar etmek ve müşterilerin beklentilerini aynı anda karşılamaktır. Bu nedenle tedarikçi değerlendirme ve seçme işlemi, işletme maliyetlerini azaltmak, iş fırsatlarını geliştirmek ve kurumsal rekabet gücünü artırmak için önemli bir stratejik karardır. Ayrıca, çevrenin korunmasına ve sürdürülebilir kalkınmaya olan ilginin artması ile birlikte, çevre gereksinimlerine daha fazla dikkat etmek ve yeşil faktörleri seçim sürecine dâhil ederek potansiyel tedarikçileri değerlendirmek gittikçe önem kazanmaktadır. Bu nedenle seçilen tedarikçiler, şirketin isteklerini yerine getirerek müşterilerin "sesini" dikkate almalıdırlar. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın amacı, çeşitli çevresel performans gereklilikleri ve kriterlerini dikkate alarak yeşil tedarikçi seçimi için entegre bir yaklaşımı ortaya koymaktır. Önerilen yaklaşım, bir ilişki yapısını oluştururken, müşteri gereksinimleri (MG'ler) arasındaki ilişkileri karar alma denemesi ve değerlendirme laboratuvarı (DEMATEL) yöntemi yardımıyla ele almaktadır. Her bir tedarikçi seçim kriteri çifti ile MG'ler arasındaki ilişki derecesini belirlemek amacıyla merkezi bir ilişki matrisi oluşturmak için kalite fonksiyon yayılımı (QFD) modeli kullanıldı. Daha sonra, alternatif tedarikçileri önceliklendirmek ve sıralamak için aralık tip-2 bulanık analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AT2 BAHP) uygulandı. Son olarak önerilen yaklaşımın potansiyelini ve uygunluğunu ortaya çıkarmak için bir vaka çalışması sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Yeşil tedarikçi seçimi, müşteri gereksinimleri, birleştirilmiş hibrit karar destek sistemi, kalite fonksiyonu yayılımı, aralık tip-2 bulanık AHP

A combined DEMATEL-QFD-AT2 BAHP approach for green supplier selection

The main purpose of the supply chain system is to make profit and meet customers' expectations simultaneously. Therefore supplier evaluation and selection is a significant strategic decision for reducing operating costs and improving organizational competitiveness to develop business opportunities. Moreover, with increasing concern towards environmental protection and sustainable development, it becomes important to pay more attention to environmental requirements and evaluating the potential suppliers by incorporating green factors into the selection process. Therefore Selected suppliers should take the "voice" of customers into account by providing the company's requests. In this context, the aim of this paper is to put forward an integrated approach for green supplier selection by considering various environmental performance requirements and criteria. The proposed approach addresses the inter-relationships between the customer requirements (CRs) with the aid of decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method while constructing a relationship structure. Quality function deployment (QFD) model is used to establish a central relationship matrix in order to identify degree of relationship between each pair of supplier selection criteria and CRs. Afterwards, interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IT2 FAHP) applied to prioritize and rank the alternative suppliers. At the ende a case study is presented to reveal the potentiality and aptness of the proposed methodology.

Keywords:

Green supplier selection, costumer needs, integrated hybrid decision support system, Quality function deployment, interval type-2 fuzzy AHP,

PDF

___

1. Karakaşoğlu, N. (2008). Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve bir uygulama, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli.
2. Torun, H., & Canbulut, G. (2018). İki aşamalı tedarik zinciri koordinasyonunun bulanık talep altında analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 2018(18-2).
3. Yazdani, M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2016). New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(6), 1097-1113.
4. Bostancı, B., Bakır, N. Y., Doğan, U., & Güngör, M. K. (2017). Bulanık karar verme teknikleri ile CBS destekli konut memnuniyeti araştırması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4).
5. Yılmaz, O., Görür, G., & Dereli, T. (2001, October). Computer aided selection of cutting parameters by using fuzzy logic. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence (pp. 854-870). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
6. Kumar, A., Jain, V., & Kumar, S. (2014). A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega, 42(1), 109-123.
7. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner production, 47, 345-354.
8. Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1200-1210.
9. Khaksar, E., Abbasnejad, T., Esmaeili, A., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2016). The effect of green supply chain management practices on environmental performance and competitive advantage: a case study of the cement industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 293-308.
10. Kannan, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2014). Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 432-447.
11. Kahraman, C., Öztayşi, B., Sarı, İ. U., & Turanoğlu, E. (2014). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Systems, 59, 48-57.
15. Liou, J. J., Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2016). New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 54(1), 114-134.
13. Yu, C., & Huatuco, L. H. (2016). Supply Chain Risk Management Identification and Mitigation: A Case Study in a Chinese Dairy Company. In Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016 (pp. 475-486). Springer, Cham.
14. Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: drivers and practices. Journal of cleaner production, 14(5), 472-486.
15. Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., & Tuzkaya, U. R. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 6(3), 477-490.
16. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(2), 370-378.
17. Kumaraswamy, A. H., Bhattacharya, A., Kumar, V., & Brady, M. (2011, September). An integrated QFD-TOPSIS methodology for supplier selection in SMEs. In Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation (CIMSiM), 2011 Third International Conference on (pp. 271-276). IEEE.
18. Rajesh, G., & Malliga, P. (2013). Supplier selection based on AHP QFD methodology. Procedia Engineering, 64, 1283-1292.
19. Dursun, M., & Karsak, E. E. (2013). A QFD-based fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(8), 5864-5875.
20. Tidwell, A., & Sutterfield, J. S. (2012). Supplier selection using QFD: a consumer products case study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(3), 284-294.
21. Alinezad, A., Seif, A., & Esfandiari, N. (2013). Supplier evaluation and selection with QFD and FAHP in a pharmaceutical company. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68(1-4), 355-364.
22. Jones, A. (2002). An environmental assessment of food supply chains: a case study on dessert apples. Environmental management, 30(4), 560-576.
23. Asadabadi, M. R. (2017). A customer based supplier selection process that combines quality function deployment, the analytic network process and a Markov chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(3), 1049-1062.
24. Pramanik, D., Haldar, A., Mondal, S. C., Naskar, S. K., & Ray, A. (2017). Resilient supplier selection using AHP-TOPSIS-QFD under a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 12(1), 45-54.
25. Azadnia, A. H., & Ghadimi, P. (2018). An Integrated Approach of Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment and Fuzzy Multi-Objective Programming Tosustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation. Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering, 11(1), 1-22.
26. Babbar, C., & Amin, S. H. (2018). A multi-objective mathematical model integrating environmental concerns for supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy QFD in beverages industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 92, 27-38.
27. Govindan, K., & Sivakumar, R. (2016). Green supplier selection and order allocation in a low-carbon paper industry: integrated multi-criteria heterogeneous decision-making and multi-objective linear programming approaches. Annals of Operations Research, 238(1-2), 243-276.
28. Celik, E., & Akyuz, E. (2018). An interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision-making problems in maritime transportation engineering: The case of ship loader. Ocean Engineering, 155, 371-381.
29. Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Sustainable supplier selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 383-408.
30. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698.
31. Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier's performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74, 170-179.
32. Baležentis, T., & Zeng, S. (2013). Group multi-criteria decision making based upon interval-valued fuzzy numbers: an extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 543-550.
33. Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Sabaghi, M. (2015). Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecological Indicators, 49, 188-203.
34. Naim, S., & Hagras, H. (2014). A type 2-hesitation fuzzy logic based multi-criteria group decision making system for intelligent shared environments. Soft Computing, 18(7), 1305-1319.
35. Cuthbertson, R., & Piotrowicz, W. (2008). Supply chain best practices–identification and categorisation of measures and benefits. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(5), 389-404.
36. Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P. K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M. K., & Nudurupati, S. S. (2014). Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach. Production Planning & Control, 25(8), 698-714. 39. Tang, J., Zhang, 37. Y. E., Tu, Y., Chen, Y., & Dong, Y. (2005). Synthesis, evaluation, and selection of parts design scheme in supplier involved product development. Concurrent Engineering, 13(4), 277-289.
38. Aksakal, E., & Dağdeviren, M. (2010). Anp Ve Dematel Yöntemleri İle Personel Seçimi Problemine Bütünleşik Bir Yaklaşim. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4).
39. Tsai, W. H., & Chou, W. C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert systems with applications, 36(2), 1444-1458.
40. Chiu, Y. J., Chen, H. C., Tzeng, G. H., & Shyu, J. Z. (2006). Marketing strategy based on customer behaviour for the LCD-TV. International journal of management and decision making, 7(2-3), 143-165.
41. Khademi-Zare, H., Zarei, M., Sadeghieh, A., & Owlia, M. S. (2010). Ranking the strategic actions of Iran mobile cellular telecommunication using two models of fuzzy QFD. Telecommunications Policy, 34(11), 747-759.
42. Ignatius, J., Rahman, A., Yazdani, M., Šaparauskas, J., & Haron, S. H. (2016). An integrated fuzzy ANP–QFD approach for green building assessment. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(4), 551-563.