Pembobotan Kriteria Evaluasi Kinerja Pemasok dengan Mempertimbangkan Risiko Gangguan Menggunakan Metode Best Worst Method

Redian Wahyu Elanda; Oky Simbolon; Wakhid Laymina Ikhsan

Authors

Redian Wahyu Elanda Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta Author
Oky Simbolon Politeknik Bhakti Asih Author
Wakhid Laymina Ikhsan Politeknik APP Jakarta Author

Keywords:

Kinerja pemasok, evaluasi pemasok, risiko rantai pasok, Best Worst Method, manajemen rantai pasok

Abstract

At PT X, an electronics manufacturer, disruptions caused by natural disasters and social factors have generated additional costs of about 8–10%. This condition underlines the importance of explicitly incorporating risk, especially disruption risk, into supplier evaluation. This study develops and weights supplier evaluation criteria by adding a risk dimension to the traditional dimensions of cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility. The Best Worst Method (BWM) is used to determine criteria weights through pairwise comparisons between the best and worst criteria, requiring fewer comparisons and improving the consistency of expert judgments. Data were obtained from three experienced procurement experts at PT X. The results show that cost and quality are the most influential dimensions, followed by delivery, risk, and flexibility. At the criteria level, product price, product reliability, on-time delivery, and risk-related indicators such as manufacturing capability, problem-solving capability, disaster recovery planning, performance history, and geographical location are relatively dominant. Low consistency values (ξ) indicate acceptable expert consistency. The resulting framework helps firms evaluate suppliers more comprehensively, reduce disruption-related costs, and enhance supply chain reliability.

References

[1] Ryals, L. J., and B. Rogers, “Holding up the mirror: The impact of strategic procurement practices on account management,” Business Horizons, vol. 49, pp. 41–50, 2006.

[2] Prajogo, D., and J. Olhager, “Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 514–522, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.001.

[3] Ryu, S., J. E. Park, and H. Min, “Factors of determining long-term orientation in interfirm relationships,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 60, no. 14, pp. 1225–1233, 2007.

[4] Tuncel, G., and G. Alpan, “Risk assessment and management for supply chain networks: A case study,” Comput. Ind., vol. 61, pp. 250–259, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2009.09.008.

[5] Wu, D. D., Y. Zhang, D. Wu, and D. L. Olson, “Fuzzy multi-objective programming for supplier selection and risk modelling: A possibility approach,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 200, pp. 774–787, 2010.

[6] Berger, P., A. Gerstenfeld, and A. Zeng, “How many suppliers are best? A decision-analysis approach,” Omega, vol. 32, pp. 9–15, 2004.

[7] Tang, C. S., “Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions,” Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–45, 2006.

[8] Cakir, S., “Selecting the best supplier at a steel-producing company under fuzzy environment,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 88, pp. 1345–1361, 2017.

[9] Ghorabaee, M. K., M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, and J. Antucheviciene, “Supplier evaluation and selection in fuzzy environments: a review of MADM approaches,” Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1073–1118, 2017.

[10] Mavi, R. K., and H. Shahabi, “Using fuzzy DEMATEL for evaluating supplier selection criteria in manufacturing industries,” Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag., vol. 22, pp. 15–42, 2015.

[11] Nallusamy, “Productivity enhancement in a small scale manufacturing unit through proposed line balancing and cellular layout,” vol. 12, pp. 523–534, 2016.

[12] Dickson, G. W., “An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions,” J. Purchasing, vol. 2, pp. 5–17, 1966, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.1966.tb00818.x.

[13] Patil, S. K., and R. Kant, “A fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, pp. 679–693, 2014.

[14] Amid, A., S. H. Ghodsypour, and C. O’Brien, “Fuzzy multiobjective linear model for supplier selection in a supply chain,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 394–407, 2006.

[15] Talluri, S., “A buyer–seller game model for selection and negotiation of purchasing bids,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 171–180, 2002.

[16] Wildemann, H., Risikomanagement und Rating. München, Germany: TCW, 2006.

[17] Hallikas, J., V.-M. Virolainen, and M. Tuominen, “Risk analysis and assessment in network environments: a dyadic case study,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 78, pp. 45–55, 2002.

[18] Chapman, P., M. Christopher, U. Juttner, H. Peck, and R. Wilding, “Identifying and managing supply-chain vulnerability,” Logist. Transp. Focus, vol. 4, pp. 59–64, 2002.

[19] Norrman, A., and U. Jansson, “Ericsson’s proactive supply chain risk management approach after a serious sub-supplier accident,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag., vol. 34, pp. 434–456, 2004.

[20] Christopher, M., and H. Peck, “Building the resilient supply chain,” Int. J. Logist. Manag., vol. 15, pp. 1–13, 2004.

[21] Chopra, S., and M. Sodhi, “Managing risk to avoid supply-chain breakdown,” MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 2004.

[22] Rezaei, J., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method,” Omega, vol. 53, pp. 49–57, 2015.

[23] Guo, S., and H. Zhao, “Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications,” Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 121, pp. 23–31, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010.

[24] Elanda, R. W., R. Ardi, and Komarudin, “Designing supplier performance criteria with a risk-oriented approach,” in Proc. 3rd Asia Pacific Conf. Research in Industrial and Systems Engineering (APCORISE ’20), New York, NY, USA, 2020, pp. 290–294, doi: 10.1145/3400934.3400987.