Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile?

Mohammad Abdollahi a,, Meysam Arvan b, Jafar Razmi b
a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
b
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Supply chain environment is more dynamic and unpredictable than the past; therefore, it needs to be
Available online 23 August 2014 highly exible in order to recongure in response to changes in their environment on the spur of the
moment. This study presents a framework for supplier selection based on product-related and organiza-
Keywords: tion-related characteristics of the suppliers to be more competitive in the market and exible to over-
Supplier selection come probable changes in demands, supplies etc. Product-related and organization-related
Analytical hierarchy process characteristics are those which are named in this study as lean and agile criteria respectively. Compre-
Lean manufacturing
hensively digging up the literature, we extract the best criteria representing both leanness and agility
Agile manufacturing
of an organization. The aim of this paper is to select an appropriate supplier portfolio based on two afore-
mentioned concepts. Supplier selection problem is solved using a combination of multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods. Due to the interaction between the criteria, analytical network process (ANP)
is applied for determining the weight of each criterion for each alternative (supplier), and then data
envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to rank them. The reason that DEA is used in this study is that when
the number of suppliers increases, ANP approach tends to work inefciently. Moreover, for determining
the accurate interdependencies between the proposed criteria, fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation
laboratory (DEMATEL) is applied. The framework is applied on a real case to demonstrate its applicability
and feasibility.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to be termed agility (Christopher, 2000). A part of a rm that pos-

Nowadays, the supply chain environment is more dynamic and
unpredictable than the past. Nature of the supply chain is charac-
terized by parameters such as product demand, product variety,
product life-cycle, and other factors (Agarwal, Shankar, & Tiwari,
2006). Because these factors are uctuating ceaselessly and are
not constant, rms must intelligently delineate their strategy in
supply chain to overcome this volatile environment. In addition,
rms must note that their chosen strategy can inuence their com-
petitiveness in the market. Thus, rms must have an exhaustive
perspective on competitiveness ingredients to promote and sustain
their situation in the market. This purpose can be obtained by
increasing their efciency and by responding quickly to the needs
of the market. Many enterprises have pursued the lean thinking
paradigm to improve the efciency of their business processes
(Mason-Jones, Naylor, & Towill, 2000). Moreover, becoming more
responsive to the needs of the market is not just about the speed,
it also requires a high level of maneuverability that today has come
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Abdollahi@wayne.edu (M. Abdollahi).
sesses a great portion of key activities is purchasing department.
De Boer et al. (2001) declare that by increasing the signicance
of purchasing functions, purchasing decisions have become more
important. One of important issues in purchasing department is
supplier selection. Supplier selection is undeniably regarded as
the cornerstone of successful purchasing and supply management
to maintain and enhance the competitive edge (Wang, 2010). That
is because good supplier selection makes a signicant difference to
an organizations future that can reduce operational costs and
improve the quality of its products and make rapid responses to
the customers demand. One of the most important components
of the supplier evaluation and selection is criteria formulation.
Wang, Huang, and Dismukes (2004) state that in lean supplier
selection, supplier attributes involve low cost and high quality,
and in agile supplier selection, supplier attributes involve speed,
exibility, and quality. Most of the previous researches have
focused on lean performance of suppliers and only a few of them
have focused on the agile performance of suppliers. However, no
one have considered suppliers with these characteristics simulta-
neously, and the advantage of considering these two groups of sup-
pliers concurrently is to achieve low cost and high quality, along
with the capability of performing swiftly and exibly when

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.019
0957-4174/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
680 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690

required (Wang et al., 2004). After the nal selection phase rms
must have a different behavior for relationship management with
these two types of suppliers.
In this paper a theoretical framework for supplier selection
based on the two groups of lean and agile suppliers is pre-
sented and a guideline for supplier relationship management
(SRM) for these suppliers has been proposed. To determine the
precise interdependencies between the suggested criteria, fuzzy
decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is
applied on the problem. Moreover, ANP application nds the
weight of each sub-criterion and nally DEA approach is utilized
to rank the suppliers regards to their score in each criterion. The
reason that ANP has not been used for the ranking is that, when
it comes to larger problems with so many alternatives, ANP tend
to be inefcient in ranking the alternatives, but such a problem
has not been reported in using DEA.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: A review on
the literature on various criteria and methods used for supplier
selection is presented in the next section. In Section 3 the proposed
methodology is presented and the criteria formulation is discussed.
In Section 4 a numerical example is presented to demonstrate the
applicability of the model. Section 5 concludes the paper with a
discussion of the implications of this study, future research direc-
tions, and concluding remarks.
2. Literature review
of suitable candidatesuppliers and recognition of the need for a
new supplier are topics that have been argued widely in the liter-
ature (De Boer & Van der Wegen, 2003). As inferred from Table 2
many different methods are used for supplier selection problems.
Few works have considered both agile and lean criteria in an
integrated way to model supplier selection problem. Besides, based
on the proposed framework, we can use different concepts to
maintain the competitiveness in the market such as different
suppliers that are presented with different levels of leanness and
agility. Examples of recent studies that have used ANP or DEMATEL
for supplier selection problem are Yang and Tzeng (2011), and
Bykzkan and ifi (2012), but they have not considered the
inefciency of ANP method in selecting between numerous
alternatives. However, we proposed a solution to this issue by
combining DEA and ANP methods.
Our study contributes to supplier selection knowledge area in
three ways. First, this is the rst study in which a framework for
agile criteria is presented based on Johnsen and Ford (2006).
Secondly, the selection of suppliers is performed in a way that their
leanness and agility can be calculated separately. This leads to
better understanding of suppliers capabilities and provides better
managerial insights towards the problem. In fact, a Pareto solution
will be provided that non-dominated suppliers can be considered
as the ideal suppliers. Thirdly, the proposed methodology in this
paper is the rst that integrate ANP, DEMATEL and DEA in a
supplier selection context.

In the supplier selection arena, there are numerous researches
that use different methodologies to solve the problem. One of the
most recent studies that has provided a reviewed the literature
on application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection
is the work of Chai, Liu, and Ngai (2013). In this paper the literature
review has been investigated from two perspectives: (1) various
criteria used for supplier selection and (2) various methods used
for supplier selection.
2.1. Various criteria used for supplier selection
The number of factors that one could consider for supplier
selection is not only large but also depends on the context (for
example strategic or transaction-oriented, etc.), type of the
product, nature of the markets, and so on. Since 1960s, supplier
selection criteria and suppliers performance have been a focal
point of many researchers. The researches implemented for
formulating supplier selections criteria are listed in Table1.
2.2. Various methods used for supplier selection
The receptivity of decision makers to the use of formal decision
tools in terms of formulation of decision criteria, the qualication
3. Proposed methodology
The proposed supplier selection framework is illustrated in
Fig. 1. Each section will be explained in details in the following
subsections. It should be noticed that i stands for each indicators
index. So, i = 0 stands for lean criteria, while i = 1 serves as agile
one. The advantages of the proposed method over existing ones
are that rst when there are numerous alternatives, ANP fails to
rank them efciently and correctly. However DEA has shown good
ranking capability over other methods, therefore we combined
these two methods to solve the above stated problem. It also
should be noticed that DEA is unable to consider hierarchical form
of criteria formation; thus, ANP approach is still needed. Secondly,
to identify the network conguration of ANP in a scientic way
DEAMTEL is applied to the problem.
3.1. Formulation of criteria
Businesses wanting to estimate suppliers performance should
rst observe suppliers according to evaluation criteria (Chang,
Chang, & Wu, 2011). In the past, price was the key factor to choose
a supplier because cost reduction is the main consideration for a
decision maker. However, in todays competitive global business

Table 1
Various criteria used for supplier selection.

Research articles Contributions

Dickson (1966)
Weber et al. (1991)
Ghodsypour and OBrien (2001)
Kahraman, Cebeci, and
Ulukan (2003)
Wu and Barnes (2010)
Chang et al. (2011)
Setak, Shari, and
Alimohammadian (2012)
Identied 23 important evaluation criteria based on a survey of 273 purchasing manager from United States and Canada
Reviewed and classied 74 articles addressed the supplier selection problem
Stated that cost, quality, and service have considerable effects on supplier selection parameters
Mentioned that selection criteria typically fall into one of four categories: supplier criteria, product performance criteria, service
performance criteria, and cost criteria
Advanced DempsterShafer and optimization theories for formulating criteria to use in partner selection decision-making
in agile supply chains
Used fuzzy DEMATEL method for selecting the most effective and efcient criteria. Their research result that the stable
delivery of goods has the most inuence and the strongest connection to other criteria
Reviewed supplier selection and order allocation models based on an extensive search in the literature and stated that price,
quality, and delivery is the most common criteria used for supplier selection
 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690 681

Table 2
Various methods used for supplier selection.

Research articles Contributions

Ghodsypour and OBrien (1998)
Karpak, Kumcu, and Kasuganti
(2001)
Hajidimitriou and Georgiou
(2002)
Dulmin and Mininno (2003)
Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, and
Giacchetta (2006)
Luo et al. (2009)
Razmi and Maghool (2010)
Ebrahim, Razmi, and Haleh
(2009)
Razmi, Raei, and Hashemi
(2009)
Razmi and Raei (2010)
Amin et al. (2011)
Bykzkan and ifi (2011)
Ertugrul Karsak and Dursun
(2014)
Tadic, Zecevic, and Krstic (2014)
a
House of quality.
b
Quality function deployment.
C
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Integrated AHP and linear programming to consider both tangible and intangible factors in choosing the best suppliers and placing
the optimum order quantities
Constructed a goal programming (GP) model to evaluate and select the suppliers. Three goals were considered in the model,
including cost, quality, and delivery reliability. The model was to determine the optimal amount of products ordered, while
subjecting to buyers demand and suppliers capacity constraints
Employed a goal programming technique for the supplier selection problem that was able to achieve multiple goals for different
levels of performance of the corresponding attributes
Used PROMETHEE and geometrical analysis techniques to rank alternatives and to analyze the relationships between criteria
Have proposed the introduction of fuzzy technique in the HOQa approach (i.e., in QFDb) for supplier selection process
Used radial basis function articial neural network (RBF-ANN) to enable potential suppliers to be assessed against multiple criteria
using both quantitative and qualitative measures in an agile supply chain
A fuzzy bi-objective model is proposed for multiple item, multiple period, supplier selection, and purchasing problem under
capacity constraint and budget limitation
Proposed a mathematical model which considers different types of discount (all-unit cost, incremental discount, and total business
volume discount) through a multi-objective formulation for single item purchasing problem and solved it using scatter search
method
A hybridization of ANP and fuzzy sets theory is proposed to model and solve the supplier selection problem under uncertain nature
of the decision making process. The proposed model is enhanced with a non-linear programming model to elicit weights of
comparisons from comparison matrices in the ANP structure
Addressed supplier selection problem with order allocation strategy for strategic items considering materials characteristics as
well as suppliers characteristics. They proposed an analytic network process (ANP) sub-model to qualify suppliers and lter-
suitable candidates among the available ones
They applied quantied SWOTc in the context of supplier selection for the rst time. In addition, the fuzzy logic and triangular
fuzzy numbers are integrated with SWOT analysis as a novel innovation to deal with vagueness of human thought
Developed a novel approach based on a fuzzy ANP model within a multi-person decision making scheme under incomplete
preference relationships. This methods advantages make possible sufcient evaluation using the provided preference information
and maintaining the evaluation consistency
Proposed a novel fuzzy decision framework that integrates QFD and DEA for supplier selection. The proposed approach
incorporates imprecise data into the analysis using linguistic variables
They proposed a novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM model for solving complex problems which combines DEMATEL, ANP and VIKOR
methods in a fuzzy context. The model is applied on city logistics concept selection for the City of Belgrade

environment, if an enterprise strives to maintain its competitive-
ness, its decision maker needs to consider all the dimensions of
suppliers potency. The supplier selection problem is a group-deci-
sion problem made under numerous criteria such as tangible and
intangible, qualitative and quantitative, and by using uncertain
and imprecise data.
In modern, competitive, dynamic and unstable market condi-
tions; rms must be exible to provide an agile environment for
quick response to the changes in business conditions, also for being
competitive in marketplace rms must concentrate on eliminating
the waste or muda to promote their efciency and satisfy the con-
sumers expectations, that is, produced items must be at a good
level of cost and quality. Hence, for being competitive in the mar-
ket these concepts must be considered simultaneously. Based on
the two mentioned approachs concept, rms must consider
Lean and Agile manufacturing because Lean works best in
high volume, low variety and predictable environments while
Agile is needed in less predictable environments where the
demand is various and considerable (Christopher, 2000). Most pub-
lished models in this area focus only on the suppliers lean manu-
facturing perspective, and only a few papers have focused on the
suppliers agile manufacturing perspective while no paper was
found that pays attention to these two factors at the same time.
In order to solve the above shortages, we set two groups of criteria:
Agile and Lean criteria. Combination of agility and leanness in
one supply chain via the strategic use of a decoupling point has
been termed le-agility (Ben Naylor, Naim, & Berry, 1999).
3.1.1. Agile criteria
In todays competitive business environment to stabilize and
improve the rms situation in the marketplace, rms should be
more agile and sensitive to changes in demand, policy, and etc.
Agile supply chains need to be highly exible in order to recong-
ure quickly in response to changes in their environment (Luo, Wu,
Rosenberg, & Barnes, 2009). Manufacturing agility is often
dened as the ability to prosper in a competitive business
environment characterized by constant and unpredictable changes
(Gunasekaran, 1999). Successful agile companies manage relation-
ships in such a way that they consciously make use of the state of
change as a means to be protable (DeVOR, Graves, & MILLS,
1997). In our research we use the outlet of Johnsen and Ford
(2006) for the main framework of agile criteria, which is developed
an interaction capability framework to assess the species of
interaction capabilities for suppliers in order to cope with the
costumers demand. However, we have different approach to these
interaction capabilities, that is, these interaction capabilities are
considered as the rms existent capability. According to the
proposed model the identied features of the suppliers interaction
capabilities are as follows: (1) Human interaction, (2) technological
interaction, (3) managerial system interaction, and (4) cultural
interaction capability.
3.1.1.1. Human capability. One of the important parts of the organi-
zations is human resources department. They can make the rm
more powerful by their activity and knowledge. Bilateral knowl-
edge development by employees of supplier and customers can
make the rm more agile. Teece (1998) has dened human capa-
bility as The ability to sense and then to seize new opportunities,
and to recongure and protect knowledge assets, competencies
and complementary assets and technologies. We dene Human
capability as the ability to recognize new opportunities and threats
and teach organization to cope with these external outcomes using
skills and knowledge of the Human resources. The obtained
sub-criteria are as follows:
682 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690

 Capability of research & development and innovation (Chen,

2011; Katsikeas et al., 2004; Lee, Kang, Hsu, & Hung, 2009).
 Production facilities and capacity (Dickson, 1966;
Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Weber, Current, & Benton, 1991).

3.1.1.3. Managerial systems capability. Managerial systems consti-

tute part of a core capability when they incorporate unusual blends
i=0 of skills, and/or foster benecial behaviors not observed in compet-
itive rms (Leonard-Barton, 1992). Leonard-Barton (1992) has
dened managerial systems interaction capability as Formal and
informal ways of creating knowledge and controlling knowledge.
Determine group i Another denition is presented by Teece (1998) which denes it as
indicators The ability to strategize.
The sub-criteria of managerial systems interaction capability
are as follows:
Apply Fuzzy- DEMATEL
to depict ANP network for  Quality systems (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Dulmin & Mininno,
group i indicators 2003; Hsu & Hu, 2009).
 Financial capability (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Punniyamoorthy
i=i+1 et al., 2011; Vinodh, Anesh Ramiya, & Gautham, 2011).
 Information sharing level (Hajji, Gharbi, Kenne, & Pellerin,
Apply ANP to extract each 2011; Krause, Handeld, & Tyler, 2007; Luo et al., 2009).
indicators weight for group
i indicators
3.1.1.4. Cultural capability. Culture refers to the degree in which
norms of behavior govern relationships, whereas congruent goals
represent the degree in which parties share a common understand-
Apply CCR-DEA to
ing and approach to the achievement of common tasks and
determine each suppliers
outcomes (Villena, Revilla, & Choi, 2011). Enormous researches in
efficiency
many elds have showed that culture plays a pivotal role in
long-term relationships between business partners (Ustun, 2008).
The obtained sub-criteria are as follows:

 Communication openness (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Ngai, Cheng, &

Ho, 2004; Wang, 2010).
 Vendors image (Katsikeas et al., 2004; Punniyamoorthy et al.,
2011).
 Mutual trust (Amin, Razmi, & Zhang, 2011; Punniyamoorthy
Plot portfolio matrix for et al., 2011; Zhang, Viswanathan, & Henke, 2011).
managerial decisions
The illustration and structure of these criteria is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1. General framework of the proposed model.
3.1.2. Lean criteria
Many enterprises have pursued the lean thinking paradigm to
 Human Resource Quality (Luo et al., 2009; Punniyamoorthy,
improve the efciency of their business processes. Leanness means
Mathiyalagan, & Parthiban, 2011; Sarkar & Mohapatra, 2006).
developing a value stream to eliminate all waste, including time,
 Organizational Learning (Gencer & Grpinar, 2007; Kogut &
and to ensure a level schedule (Ben Naylor et al., 1999). Leanness
Zander, 1992; Luo et al., 2009).
may be an element of agility in certain circumstances, but it will
 Team Structures (Croom, 2001; Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001; Yauch,
not enable the organization to meet the precise needs of the cus-
2007).
tomers more rapidly (Agarwal et al., 2006). Ho, Xu, and Dey
(2010) reviewed methods supporting supplier selection problems
since 2000 to 2008. They concluded that the most popular criterion
3.1.1.2. Technological capability. A number of studies have consid-
in previous researches are quality, followed by delivery, price/cost.
ered technological capability as an important metric for supplier
Many criteria can be considered for lean suppliers, but problem
selection procedure (Bhattacharya, Geraghty, & Young, 2010;
solution would be very large and confusing, hence we use three cri-
Choi & Hartley, 1996; Choy & Lee, 2002; Kannan & Haq, 2007;
teria for selecting lean suppliers. They are discussed in below.
Lee, Lee, & Pennings, 2001). Technology means knowledge about
doing practical things, chiey producing things (In a modern envi-
3.1.2.1. Quality. Companies in todays highly competitive market-
ronment, this must include both goods and services). It is believed
place are forced to deliver goods or services with prominent
to be one of the important supplier selection criteria.
privilege to make the costumers satised. Quality is the most
The most important sub-criteria of technological capability are
important criterion that inuences the decision problem on
as follows:
supplier selection in any kinds of materials and products. Many
authors have exclaimed that different aspects of quality can inu-
 Communication and E-commerce systems (Guo, Yuan, & Tian,
ence the performance of suppliers (Chang, Wang, & Wang, 2007;
2009; Katsikeas, Paparoidamis, & Katsikea, 2004; Lin, Chen, &
Choi & Hartley, 1996; Dickson, 1966; Swift, 1995; Weber &
Ting, 2011).
Current, 1993). The derived sub-criteria of quality are as follows:
 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690 683

Agile Criteria

Human Capability Technological Capability Managerial System Capability Cultural Capability

Human Resource Communication & Quality Systems Communication

Quality E-Commerce System Openness

Organizational Capability of R&D Financial Vendors Image

Learning and Innovation Capability

Team Structures Production Facilities Information Mutual Trust

and Capacity Sharing Level

Fig. 2. Agile criteria and sub-criteria.

 Warranties & claim policies (Dickson, 1966; Guo et al., 2009;  Safety and security of components (Punniyamoorthy et al.,
Kuo, Wang, & Tien, 2010). 2011; Wang, 2010).
 Product durability (Huang & Keskar, 2007; Punniyamoorthy  Appropriateness of the packaging (Dickson, 1966;
et al., 2011; Takeishi, 2001). Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Wang, 2010).
 Product performance (Cannon, Doney, Mullen, & Petersen,
2010; Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Wang, 2010). Fig. 3 demonstrates the lean criteria structure.
 Repair and return rate (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011; Tam &
Tummala, 2001; Xia & Wu, 2007). 3.2. Evaluate the structure of the network by fuzzy DEMATEL

The DEMATEL method was developed by Science and Human

3.1.2.2. Cost. Improvements in the cost of products for buying rms
are partially dependent on the improvements made by their sub-
component suppliers, for example, in reductions in rework, scrap,
and downtimes (Krause et al., 2007). Cost was the rst metric for
selecting suitable supplier problems from the past until now. Pur-
chasing department can play a key role in cost reduction, and sup-
plier selection is one of the most important functions of purchasing
management. Cost is highly tangible for purchasing department of
company; thus, it can be an appropriate measure for evaluating the
suppliers. Many of the previous researchers have considered cost
and its derivations as a metric for ponder the suppliers efciency
(Choi & Hartley, 1996; Dickson, 1966; Hou & Su 2006; Swift,
1995; Weber et al., 1991). The most three important sub-criteria
are as follows:
Affairs Program of the Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva
between 1972 and 1976. The foundation of DEMATEL is based on
graph theory and helps the process of analyzing by visualizing
the problem. It uses matrix calculation to get the casual relation-
ships and the impact strength (Tzeng, Chiang, & Li, 2007; Chen,
2011). In this paper the DEMATEL is used to nd the interdepen-
dencies among the attributes.
DEMATEL is a structural modeling approach which uses matrix
calculations to nd all direct and indirect relations between the
criteria. This study uses fuzzy DEMATEL for identifying relations
between the criteria. Different degrees of inuences are expressed
with ve linguistic terms and these linguistic terms are converted
to fuzzy triangular numbers as shown in Table 3.
Steps of fuzzy DEMATEL are as follows:

 Product price (Chang et al., 2011; Choy, Lee, & Lo, 2003; Step1. Gathering experts opinions: The inuence of criterion i
Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011). on criterion j is denoted by Xij and the matrix is named XK which
 Logistics costs (Ghodsypour & OBrien, 2001; Inman, Sale, k shows kth expert.
Green, & Whitten, 2011; Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011). Step2. Replacing linguistic terms with fuzzy triangular
 Payment terms (Punniyamoorthy et al., 2011). numbers.
Step3. Transforming triangular fuzzy numbers into the initial
direct-relation matrix F. This study uses Converting Fuzzy data
3.1.2.3. Delivery. Delivery has attracted great attention of research- into Crisp Scores (CFCS) proposed by Chang et al. (2007).
ers in supplier selection problems (Choi & Hartley, 1996; Dickson, Step4. Calculating normalized initial direct matrix. The normal-
1966; Swift, 1995; Weber et al., 1991). It refers to both the sup- ized initial direct matrix is:
pliers logistical performance as well as the critical activities and
processes that it performs from the time that the input is (re) D s  A; 1
ordered until it arrives at the business customers facility (i.e.,
In which D represents the normalized initial direct relation
order fulllment), can also inuence a business customers costs,
matrix and s is calculated using below equation:
velocity to market, and/or how its value proposition is perceived
2 3
by the end user (Bharadwaj, 2004). Delivery has four primary
1 1
components: s min 4 P ; P 5 2
max nj1 jaij j max ni1 jaij j
i j
 Lead time (Kuo et al., 2010; Chen, 2011; Lin et al., 2011).
 On-time delivery (Chen, 2011; Vinodh et al., 2011; Xia & Wu, Step5. Calculating the total relation matrix.
2007). In this step indirect effects between criteria are measured so
that the matrix T reects the total relationship and its elements
684 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690

Lean Criteria

Cost Quality Delivery

Products Prices Warranties & Claim Lead Time

Policies

Logistics Cost Product Durability On-Time

Delivery

Payment Terms Product Performance Safety & Security

Appropriateness
of the Packing

Fig. 3. Lean criteria and sub-criteria.

Table 3
Corresponding linguistic terms for evaluation. Table 6
The normalized initial direct relation matrix for agile attributes.
Linguistic variable Inuence Corresponding triangular fuzzy
score numbers (TFNs) P1 P2 P3 P4

No inuence (NO) 0 (0,0,0.25) P1 0 0.28 0.42 0.28

Very low inuence 1 (0,0.25,0.5) P2 0.14 0 0.14 0
(VL) P3 0.42 0.14 0 0.42
Low inuence (L) 2 (0.25,0.5,0.75) P4 0.28 0 0.14 0
High inuence (H) 3 (0.5,0.75,1)
Very high inuence 4 (0.75,1,1)
(VH)

Table 7
The normalized initial direct relation matrix for lean attributes.

H1 H2 H3

Table 4 H1 0 0.57 0.47

Average matrix for agile criteria. H2 0.57 0 0
H3 0.25 0 0
Agile P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 0 2 3 2
P2 1 0 1 0
P3 3 1 0 3 Table 8
P4 2 0 1 0 Total relation matrix for agile criteria.

P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 0.05179 0.60854 0.40523 0.37577
P2 0.20011 0.42685 0.36631 0.15879
Table 5 P3 0.20592 0.20172 0.14589 0.68316
Average matrix for lean criteria. P4 0.30041 0.02148 0.09246 0.01418

Lean H1 H2 H3
H1 0 4 3
H2 4 0 0
Table 9
H3 2 0 0
Total relation matrix for lean criteria.

H1 H2 H3
H1 0.31549 0.11923 0.26502
H2 0.70049 0.32448 0.07179
tij indicate the full direct and indirect inuences of criterion i on H3 0.36607 0.00795 0.10460
criterion j.

T DI  D1
Step6. Dene a threshold value to create impact relation map.
The threshold value can be chosen by the decision maker or
through discussions with experts. This study uses the maxi-
mum mean de-entropy (MMDE) algorithm developed by Chung
et al. to choose the threshold value.
The steps of MMDE method (Li & Tzeng, 2009) are as follows:
3
Step1. Transform the matrix T into an ordered set T, {t11,
t12, . . . , t22, t23, . . . , tnn}, and rearrange them from large to small
and dene the corresponding triplets, (tij, Xi, Xj) and denote it
by T0 .
Step2. Take the second element of ordered triplets of the set
and denote the new set T0 , ordered dispatch node set, as T Di .
 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690 685

According to the calculated threshold value, minor effects in the

elements of matrix T are eliminated and matrix Tp can be dened
as follow:

0 if t ij < p
t pij 5
t ij if t ij P p

3.3. Determining suppliers weight using ANP

Fig. 4. DEMATEL network for agile criteria.

ANP as a general form of AHP introduced by Saaty (1996) con-

siders both outer and inner dependencies between clusters. This
method makes it possible to consider the cycle between clusters
and loop (the inuence of one cluster on itself). The general form
Cost
of AHP provides a framework for decision making without the
assumptions of AHP method and it considers both outer and inner
dependencies. Generally, ANP generalized AHP by replacing
hierarchical problem to a network system which includes all the
connections between elements. The steps of ANP in which a novel
cluster weighting is used (Yang & Tzeng, 2011) are described
Quality below:
Delivery
Step1. Construction of model and determination of network
structure by fuzzy DEMATEL.
Fig. 5. DEMATEL network for lean criteria. Step2. Map the problem similar to a network using matrix Tp
derived from DEMATEL method and form super matrix through
pair wise comparisons and denote it, W.
Step3. Take the rst t element of T Di and dene a new set T Dt i , Step3. Determining pairwise comparison matrices (PCMs) and
and then calculate HD of T Dt i and denote it by HDt i . The mean de- priority vectors.
entropy can be obtained by Eq. (4). Step4. Creation of un-weighted, weighted and limit super
matrices. The un-weighted super matrix denoted by W is
HDt i constructed by the priority derived from different pairwise
MDEDt i 4 comparisons. The weighted super matrix denoted by Ww is
NT Dt i
obtained by multiplying each entry in a block of the component
Step4. Select the maximum mean de-entropy from CT Di mean at the top of the super matrix by the priority of inuence
de-entropy values and its corresponding T Dt i and denote it by component inuence on the left from the cluster matrix. ANP
T Dmax
i
. considers both direct and indirect inuences between clusters.
Step5. Take the rst u elements of T0 and denote it as Tth which Limit super matrix as nal super matrix denoted by Wf is calcu-
include all elements of T Dmax
i
and T RE
max .The minimum inuence lated by odd powers of Ww to achieve a convergence value as
value in Tth is the threshold value. follow:

Supplier selection

Dimensions Agile Lean

Cultural Managerial Technological

Criteria Capability System Capability Capability
Human Capability Cost Quality Delivery

Communication &
Human Resource Quality Systems Lead Time
E-Commerce Communication Products Prices Warranties & Claim
Quality Financial Capability On-Time Delivery
Capability of R&D Openness Logistics Cost Policies
Sub-Criteria Organizational Information Sharing Safety & Security
and Innovation Vendors Image Payment Terms Product Durability
Learning Level Appropriateness of
Production Facilities Mutual Trust Product Performance
Team Structures the Packing
and Capacity

Alternatives Supplier 1 Supplier 2 . Supplier N

Fig. 6. ANP model to nd each criterion weight for each supplier.

 686
Table 10
Limit super matrix.

Lean criteria Agile criteria

Cost Quality Delivery Human Technological Managerial Cultural

M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690

H11 H12 H13 H21 H22 H23 H31 H32 H33 H34 P11 P12 P13 P21 P22 P23 P31 P32 P33 P41 P42 P43
Lean criteria
Cost H11 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
H12 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
H13 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
Quality H21 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
H22 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032
H23 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021
Delivery H31 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
H32 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041
H33 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034
H34 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
Agile criteria
Human P11 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059
P12 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
P13 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044
Technological P21 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.229
P22 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
P23 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027
Managerial P31 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
P32 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052
P33 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049
Cultural P41 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052
P42 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
P43 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690 687

Table 11
ANP weights of each criterion for suppliers.

Cost Quality Delivery Human Technological Managerial Cultural

S1 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.1 0.08 0.12 0.13
S2 0.14 0.09 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.27
S3 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.15
S4 0.1 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.22
S5 0.15 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.2
S6 0.13 0.12 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.22
S7 0.25 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.04 0.12 0.15
S8 0.11 0.08 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.14 0.09
S9 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.16
S10 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.19 0.1 0.22 0.17
S11 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.1 0.13
S12 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.15
S13 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.2 0.12
S14 0.16 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.18
S15 0.12 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.24 0.15 0.21
S16 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.15
S17 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.23
S18 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.2
S19 0.16 0.11 0.2 0.03 0.1 0.17 0.23
S20 0.24 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.2

Table 12 W f limW 2l1

w 6
DEA output. l!1

Supplier CCR leanness CCR agility Classication* Now by using the weight of each alternative on each criterion,
1 1 0.764 HL DEA can be used to rank the suppliers based in these weights.
2 0.272 0.562 LL
3 0.501 1 LH 3.4. Ranking suppliers using DEA
4 0.320 1 LH
5 0.354 0.702 LL
6 0.725 1 LH Data envelopment analysis (DEA) proposed by Charnes, Cooper,
7 0.627 0.234 LL and Rhodes (1978) is a mathematical programming method that
8 0.449 0.723 LL measures the relative performance of DMUs. The capability of
9 1 0.78 HL DEA in measuring efciency of DMUs (suppliers) where there are
10 0.464 0.867 LH
11 1 0.805 HH
both quantitative and qualitative criteria, and its ability to identify
12 0.494 0.435 LL the potential improvement for inefcient DMUs are two general
13 0.563 0.904 LH advantages of DEA that has attracted a lot of attention in recent
14 1 1 HH years. Generally, there are two basic models for DEA: constant
15 0.399 1 LH
returns-to-scale (CRS) or CCR model, and variable returns-to-scale
16 0.741 0.354 LL
17 0.556 0.855 LH (VRS) or BCC model. CCR model is used in this study. The general
18 1 0.733 HL form of the model for supplier j could be dened as:
19 1 0.773 HL
20 0.798 0.643 LL max Sj aT Y q
*
LL = low leanness and low agility; LH = low leanness and high agility; HL = high subject to : aT Y  bT X 6 0 8j 1; . . . ; s
leanness and low agility; HE = high leanness and high agility.
bT X q 1 8j 1; . . . ; s 6
ak P e 8k 1; . . . ; m
bi P e 8i 1; . . . ; n
Leannes
Where ak: the weight of output k, aT: the vector of output
weights,bi: the weight of input i, bT: the vector of input weights,
ykj: the amount of output k of DMU j, Yq: the Vector of output
weights by the target DMU, xij: the amount of input k of DMU j,
High
1,9,18,19 11,14 Xq: the Vector of input weights by the target DMU, m: number of
outputs, m: Number of inputs, s: number of DMUs, : very small
positive number.

4. Numerical example

3,4,6,10,13,15, In this section a numerical example is provided to demonstrate

2,5,7,8,12,16,20
Low 17 how the proposed framework can be implemented in practice. At
the rst step, the average matrixes for the attributes (Lean and
Agile attributes) are shown in Tables 4 and 5. P1, P2, . . . , Pn denote
Agility for agile main criteria namely cultural capability, managerial sys-
High
tem capability, technological capability, and human capability
respectively. Moreover H1, H2, and H3 represent cost, quality, and
Fig. 7. Portfolio matrix for supplier relationship management. delivery criteria respectively.
688 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690
Step2. The normalized initial direct relation matrixes are calcu-
lated using Eqs. (2) and (3). The results are shown in Tables 6
and 7.
Step3. The total relation matrixes derived from Eq. (3) and it are
shown in Tables 8 and 9.
Using matrix Tp derived from previous step and the threshold
value obtained from MMDE method, we can map the problem.
The achieved networks are demonstrated in Figs. 4 and 5.
Now, the ANP approach applies to the problem and denes the
weight of each criterion for each supplier. First step of ANP is con-
structing the model. The model in this step is constructed regards
to DEMATEL results. The model is shown in Fig. 6. Notice that the
interactions between criteria are depicted regards to DEMATEL
nal matrix. For legibility of the gure self-interactions are
ignored. The second step is determining pairwise comparison
matrixes (PCMs) and priority vectors. This step leads to calculating
un-weighted, weighted and limit super matrices. Limit super
matrix is shown in Table 10.
The last step of ANP method is calculating nal weighted super
matrix which derived from Eq. (6) and the result is shown in
Table 11.
Now the weights of all criteria namely cost, quality, for lean-
ness, and human Capability technological system capability and
managerial cultural capability for agility are calculated. It should
be noticed that the weights are calculated considering sub-criteria
and the hierarchy form of the problem. Therefore, using the weight
of each alternative on each criterion, now we can rank the suppli-
ers by DEA. For the lean indicators, cost is considered to be input of
the CCR model, and consequently we take quality and delivery as
output. On the other hand, human and managerial capabilities
directly affect cultural and technological abilities of the rm.
Therefore, we considered the rst mentioned indicators as input
and the latter as output. Then we ran the CCRDEA model and
the results are shown in Table 12.
Afterward, the suppliers are classied into four categories that
are shown in Fig. 7.
This research proposes crucial managerial implications. The
methodology proposed in this article can be utilized to make
critical managerial decisions such as optimization of the suppliers
network, effective allocation of resources to supplier development
programs and initiatives, and initiation of benchmarking and
reengineering programs. The following conclusions and recom-
mendations that emerged from this study are currently under
consideration for implementation by Company X. In optimizing
the suppliers network, managers can utilize the classications
suggested in this study to reduce their supply base, by pruning
suppliers in the LL cluster or by allocating less business to these
suppliers. In addition, management can provide these suppliers
with possible benchmarks for improvement and set expectations
for target times to match them. This is one of the critical manage-
rial advantages of the proposed methodology. Effective allocation
of resources for supplier development programs is often a difcult
decision for managers. The methodology in the research suggests
that LH suppliers are the primary candidates for such programs.
These suppliers are efcient and have the infrastructure to become
high performers with allocation of resources. HH suppliers are the
star performers, and these are the type of suppliers with which
Company X needs to develop a long-term relationship. LL suppliers
are candidates for pruning. LH suppliers are candidates for
further development. It is here that Company X must invest in
terms of supplier development programs and initiatives for making
this cluster of suppliers to improve their performance. Finally, HH
suppliers represent potential long-term risk in that they are per-
forming satisfactorily now, but most likely do not have a structure
and organizational capabilities that can sustain performance in the
future. Thus, they should not be neglected and the development
programs should be continued for them. Although, their priority
is less than other groups, since HH suppliers performance is
superior to them.
5. Conclusion
This article has proposed a framework for supplier evaluation
and selection based on lean and agile criteria. The analysis is based
on a DEMATELANPDEA model that allows incorporation of
multiple suppliers in determining the relative efciencies. The ef-
ciency scores in combination with the performance scores are uti-
lized in classifying suppliers into four categories. Benchmarks are
provided for improving the operations of poorly performing suppli-
ers. Several useful managerial insights and implications from the
study are also discussed.
There are several advantages to the proposed approach. The
DEA score is a surrogate for overall competence and capability
of a supplier, which cannot be easily and cost-effectively discerned
through supplier audits. Another advantage of this approach is in
identifying strategically important suppliers. The leanness-agil-
ity-based evaluation methods are based on evaluating point-in-
time data in that the data are a snapshot of the suppliers perfor-
mance in time. In evaluating suppliers from a strategic perspective,
it can be argued that evaluations based on inherent competence
and capability is likely to be more comprehensive. In this study
supplier selection problem is solved using a combination of
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. Due to the inter-
action between the criteria, analytical network process (ANP) is
applied for determining the weight of each criterion and then, data
envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to rank the suppliers. For
determining the accurate interdependencies between the criteria,
fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL)
is applied. To our best of knowledge, no previous work investigated
such a problem by an integrated method with DEMATEL, ANP, and
DEA.
Future researches can apply the approach to other aspects and
concepts in businesses. Considering concepts such as resilience
that have gained considerable attentions in recent researches in
the eld of risk management can be a hint for this purpose. Based
on relationships between suppliers and manufacturers such as
complexity of transactions, the ability to codify transactions, and
the degree of explicit coordination and power asymmetry between
suppliers and manufacturers; new criteria can be introduced and
mixed with the criteria used in the paper. This would make a more
robust portfolio of suppliers. In addition, fuzzy numbers can be
introduced in the AHP or ANP methods to more effectively analyze
cases having greater uncertainty in the data.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.
08.019.
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Modeling the metrics of lean, agile
and leagile supply chain: An ANP-based approach. European Journal of
Operational Research, 173(1), 211225.
Amin, S. H., Razmi, J., & Zhang, G. (2011). Supplier selection and order allocation
based on fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38(1), 334342.
Ben Naylor, J., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the lean and
agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics, 62(1), 107118.
Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F. E., & Giacchetta, G. (2006). A fuzzy-QFD approach to
supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(1), 1427.
 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690
Bharadwaj, N. (2004). Investigating the decision criteria used in electronic
components procurement. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 317323.
Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J., & Young, P. (2010). Supplier selection paradigm: An
integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment.
Applied Soft Computing, 10(4), 10131027.
Bykzkan, G., & ifi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework
for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in
Industry, 62(2), 164174.
Bykzkan, G., & ifi, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39(3), 30003011.
Cannon, J. P., Doney, P. M., Mullen, M. R., & Petersen, K. J. (2010). Building long-term
orientation in buyersupplier relationships: The moderating role of culture.
Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 506521.
Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in
supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with
Applications, 40(10), 38723885.
Chang, B., Chang, C. W., & Wu, C. H. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing
supplier selection criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 18501858.
Chang, S. L., Wang, R. C., & Wang, S. Y. (2007). Applying a direct multi-granularity
linguistic and strategy-oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of
supply performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(2),
10131025.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efciency of decision
making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429444.
Chen, Y. J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a
supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 16511670.
Choi, T. Y., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection practices
across the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 14(4), 333343.
Choy, K. L., & Lee, W. B. (2002). A generic tool for the selection and management of
supplier relationships in an outsourced manufacturing environment: The
application of case based reasoning. Logistics Information Management, 15(4),
235253.
Choy, K. L., Lee, W., & Lo, V. (2003). Design of a case based intelligent supplier
relationship management system The integration of supplier rating
system and product coding system. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1),
87100.
Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in volatile markets.
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 3744.
Croom, S. R. (2001). The dyadic capabilities concept: Examining the processes of key
supplier involvement in collaborative product development. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(1), 2937.
De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting
supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(2),
7589.
De Boer, L., & Van der Wegen, L. L. M. (2003). Practice and promise of formal
supplier selection: A study of four empirical cases. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 9(3), 109118.
DeVOR, R. I. C. H. A. R. D., Graves, R., & MILLS, J. J. (1997). Agile manufacturing
research: Accomplishments and opportunities. IIE Transactions, 29(10),
813823.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions.
Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 517.
Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2003). Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision
aid method. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(4), 177187.
Ebrahim, R. M., Razmi, J., & Haleh, H. (2009). Scatter search algorithm for supplier
selection and order lot sizing under multiple price discount environment.
Advances in Engineering Software, 40(9), 766776.
Ertugrul Karsak, E., & Dursun, M. (2014). An integrated supplier selection
methodology incorporating QFD and DEA with imprecise data. Expert Systems
with Applications.
Gencer, C., & Grpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A
case study in an electronic rm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(11),
24752486.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & Obrien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier
selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear
programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 56, 199212.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & Obrien, C. (2001). The total cost of logistics in supplier
selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity
constraint. International Journal of Production Economics, 73(1), 1527.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and
development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 87105.
Guo, X., Yuan, Z., & Tian, B. (2009). Supplier selection based on hierarchical potential
support vector machine. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 69786985.
Hajidimitriou, Y. A., & Georgiou, A. C. (2002). A goal programming model for partner
selection decisions in international joint ventures. European Journal of
Operational Research, 138(3), 649662.
Hajji, A., Gharbi, A., Kenne, J. P., & Pellerin, R. (2011). Production control and
replenishment strategy with multiple suppliers. European Journal of Operational
Research, 208(1), 6774.
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for
supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of
Operational Research, 202(1), 1624.
Hou, J., & Su, D. (2006). Integration of web services technology with business
models within the total product design process for supplier selection.
Computers in Industry, 57(8), 797808.
689
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to
supplier selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production,
17(2), 255264.
Huang, S. H., & Keskar, H. (2007). Comprehensive and congurable metrics for
supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2),
510523.
Inman, R. A., Sale, R. S., Green, K. W., Jr, & Whitten, D. (2011). Agile manufacturing:
Relation to JIT, operational performance and rm performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 29(4), 343355.
Johnsen, R. E., & Ford, D. (2006). Interaction capability development of smaller
suppliers in relationships with larger customers. Industrial Marketing Management,
35(8), 10021015.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using
fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382394.
Kannan, G., & Haq, A. N. (2007). Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria
for the selection of supplier in the built-in-order supply chain environment.
International Journal of Production Research, 45(17), 38313852.
Karpak, B., Kumcu, E., & Kasuganti, R. R. (2001). Purchasing materials in the supply
chain: Managing a multi-objective task. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 7(3), 209216.
Katsikeas, C. S., Paparoidamis, N. G., & Katsikea, E. (2004). Supply source selection
criteria: The impact of supplier performance on distributor performance.
Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 755764.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the rm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383397.
Krause, D. R., Handeld, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between
supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and
performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2),
528545.
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the
literature. Management Science, 47(1), 121.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of articial neural network
and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(12), 11611170.
Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection
model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4),
79177927.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and
performance. A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(67), 615640.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in
managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1),
111125.
Li, C. W., & Tzeng, G. H. (2009). Identication of a threshold value for the DEMATEL
method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to nd critical services
provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(6), 98919898.
Lin, C. T., Chen, C. B., & Ting, Y. C. (2011). An ERP model for supplier selection
in electronics industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1760
1765.
Luo, X., Wu, C., Rosenberg, D., & Barnes, D. (2009). Supplier selection in agile supply
chains: An information-processing model and an illustration. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(4), 249262.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Lean, agile or leagile? Matching
your supply chain to the marketplace. International Journal of Production
Research, 38(17), 40614070.
Ngai, E. W. T., Cheng, T. C. E., & Ho, S. S. M. (2004). Critical success factors of web-
based supply-chain management systems: An exploratory study. Production
Planning & Control, 15(6), 622630.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mathiyalagan, P., & Parthiban, P. (2011). A strategic model
using structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(1), 458474.
Razmi, J., & Maghool, E. (2010). Multi-item supplier selection and lot-sizing
planning under multiple price discounts using augmented e-constraint and
Tchebycheff method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 49(14), 379392.
Razmi, J., & Raei, H. (2010). An integrated analytic network process with mixed-
integer non-linear programming to supplier selection and order allocation. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49(912),
11951208.
Razmi, J., Raei, H., & Hashemi, M. (2009). Designing a decision support system to
evaluate and select suppliers using fuzzy analytic network process. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 57(4), 12821290.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic
network process.
Sarkar, A., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2006). Evaluation of supplier capability and
performance. A method for supply base reduction. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 12(3), 148163.
Setak, M., Shari, S., & Alimohammadian, A. (2012). Supplier selection and order
allocation models in supply chain management: A review. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 18(1), 5572.
Swift, C. O. (1995). Preferences for single sourcing and supplier selection criteria.
Journal of Business Research, 32(2), 105111.
Tadic, S., Zecevic, S., & Krstic, M. (2014). A novel hybrid MCDM model based on
fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection.
Expert Systems with Applications.
690 M. Abdollahi et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 679690
Takeishi, A. (2001). Bridging inter-and intra-rm boundaries: Management of
supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(5), 403433.
Tam, M. C., & Tummala, V. M. (2001). An application of the AHP in vendor selection
of a telecommunications system. Omega, 29(2), 171182.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy,
markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review,
40(3).
Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in
e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and
DEMATEL. Expert systems with Applications, 32(4), 10281044.
Ustun, O. (2008). An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for
multi-period lot-sizing with supplier selection. Omega, 36(4), 509521.
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011). The dark side of buyersupplier
relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management,
29(6), 561576.
Vinodh, S., Anesh Ramiya, R., & Gautham, S. G. (2011). Application of fuzzy analytic
network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organisation. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(1), 272280.
Wang, W. P. (2010). A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation.
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(10), 31303141.
Wang, G., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2004). Product-driven supply chain
selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology.
International Journal of Production Economics, 91(1), 115.
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection.
European Journal of Operational Research, 68(2), 173184.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and
methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 218.
Wu, C., & Barnes, D. (2010). Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply
chains: A DempsterShafer belief acceptability optimisation approach.
International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 284293.
Xia, W., & Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume
discount environments. Omega, 35(5), 494504.
Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with
DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(3), 14171424.
Yauch, C. A. (2007). Team-based work and work system balance in the context of
agile manufacturing. Applied Ergonomics, 38(1), 1927.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. Jr, (2011). The boundary spanning
capabilities of purchasing agents in buyersupplier trust development. Journal
of Operations Management, 29(4), 318328.