Neural Comput & Applic
DOI 10.1007/s00521-016-2533-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: a case study
in the Indian automotive industry
Vipul Jain1 • Arun Kumar Sangaiah2 • Sumit Sakhuja3 • Nittin Thoduka3
Rahul Aggarwal3
Received: 21 April 2016 / Accepted: 8 August 2016
Ó The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016
Abstract Supplier selection is one of the key activities of
purchase management in supply chain. Supplier selection is
a multifaceted problem relating qualitative and quantitative
multi-criteria. This paper deals with a supplier selection
problem in an Indian automobile company. The work
presents selection of headlamp supplier using integrated
fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approaches: analyti-
cal hierarchy process (AHP) and technique for order of
preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The
selection process starts with identifying the criteria based
on literature review and interviewing industry experts.
Weights to criteria are assigned using AHP, and suppliers
are ranked using AHP and TOPSIS. Consistency tests are
carried out to check the quality of expert’s inputs. Also,
sensitivity analysis is done to check the robustness of the
approach. The results address that fuzzy approaches could
be effective and more accurate than the existing approaches
for supplier selection problems.
Keywords Supplier selection  AHP  TOPSIS 
Consistency test  Sensitivity analysis
& Arun Kumar Sangaiah
arunkumarsangaiah@gmail.com
1
Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand
2
School of Computing Science and Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, G.D.Goennka World
Institute & Lancaster University, Sohna, India
•
1 Introduction
Suppliers play a major role in the production, delivery and
service of competitive quality products. Purchased mate-
rials and services represent up to 80 % of the total product
costs in most high technology industries [14]. For any
manufacturing or service business, selecting the right
upstream suppliers is a key success factor that will sig-
nificantly reduce purchasing cost, increase downstream
customer satisfaction, and improve competitive ability
[22]. The increasing demands from end customers force
companies to focus on their core competence and let the
suppliers carry out a larger part of the work than before.
This makes companies much more dependent on their
suppliers, and this increases the need of coordination and
adoption of supply chain management (SCM). It also
means that a larger part of the supply chain has to be
managed and to do this the network horizon must be
extended. This needs to be done in order to create pro-
cesses that are more efficient but also to reduce the risk of
disruptions [9, 37].
Supplier selection is a strategic decision that companies
take as a result of which they identify and evaluate
potential suppliers with the view of contracting with them
offering products and services of high value [5]. The rapid
advances and competition between companies needs
effective management of supply chain for gaining more
profit to the industry. Nowadays, choosing a supplier
involves more than just scanning a series of price lists. The
choice of supplier should depend on a wide number of
criteria such as quality of the product, value for money of
the product, reliability of the product, product variety, on-
time delivery, quality of the relationship, performance
history, financial status, brand name, warranty, environ-
mental performance. All these criteria, to some extent,
123
 Neural Comput & Applic

influence the supplier selection. The factors are weighed
based on the company’s needs, priorities, and strategy. The
selection criteria and the importance of each criterion vary
from industry to industry. Firms should adopt a strategic
approach to supplier relationship management and avoid a
‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ strategy for supplier relationship man-
agement [12, 15, 31, 39]. Having more than one supplier
can help in reducing the risk if one supplier fails to deliver
the products.
India is probably the most competitive country in the
world for the automotive industry. The Indian Automotive
Industry has one of the largest markets in the world, and
the car manufacturing industry is the sixth largest in the
world. The automotive industry in India accounts for about
22 % of the country’s manufacturing gross domestic pro-
duct (GDP). It does not cover 100 % of technology or
components required to make a car, but it is giving a good
97 %. Procurement is especially important in the automo-
tive industry because a large number of components are
assembled and it is not possible for a company to produce
all those components. There are also a large number of
vendors for each component and intense competition
among them. The frequent introduction of new models and
shorter product lifecycles compounded by fast order-de-
livery require high level of agility and flexibility of the
suppliers, thereby exacerbating the supply chain com-
plexity. With the mounting complexity of supply chain, the
selection of the suppliers becomes very challenging.
Recently, a number of studies [4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23–27, 30]
have utilized MCDM approaches, either independently, or
hybridization of two or more MCDM approaches. Subse-
quently, recent studies, we can find hybridization of
MCDM approaches for the example DEMATEL-TOPSIS
[32], DEMATEL-TOPSIS-ELECTRE [33], AHP-PRO-
METHEE [35], GMM-TOPSIS [3]. On the other hand, the
hybridization of fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS in the context of
evaluating the supply chain risk has not been available in
the existing literatures. Thus, addressing this research gaps
inspired us to propose a hybrid approach based on fuzzy
AHP and TOPSIS approaches to evaluate the supply chain
risk in the Indian automotive industry.
2 Theoretical foundations
The earlier studies [6, 13, 16–21, 32–34, 36, 40] have
incorporated various multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) approaches such as DEMATEL, TOPSIS,
ELECTRE, TODIM in the decision-making process. Only
few studies [1, 2, 38] have integrated fuzzy AHP and
TOPSIS approaches in the decision-making process.
Moreover, we have not found hybrid AHP-TOPSIS for the
evaluation of supply chain risk. Based on the context, we
have integrated AHP and TOPSIS approaches for evalu-
ation of supply chain risk . In this work, MCDM
approaches are implemented to select best supplier for a
component in an automobile industry. The initial step in
this process is the identification of appropriate selection
criteria for a particular product type. This is done by
reviewing the literature on supplier selection problems and
also interactions with industry experts. After the selection
criteria are identified, the next step is to have a pair-wise
comparison of criteria on Saaty scale. These inputs are
then used to assign weights to the criteria using AHP
methodology.
2.1 Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
The AHP helps decision makers find the one that best suits
their goal and their understanding of the problem. It pro-
vides a comprehensive and rational framework for struc-
turing a decision problem, for representing and quantifying
its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals,
and for evaluating alternative solutions.
The decision problem is first decomposed into a
hierarchy of easily comprehensible subproblems. Each
subproblem is analyzed independently. The hierarchy
consists of the decision goal, the criteria for evaluating
the alternatives, and the alternatives for reaching the
goal. Table 1 defines the Saaty scale [28, 29] used for
AHP.
The AHP methodology is explained with the help of
equations described below:
Equation 1 shows the pair-wise comparison matrix.

Table 1 Saaty scale used in AHP (Saaty 1987)

Intensity of importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to the objective

3 Somewhat more important
5 Much more important
7 Very much more important
9 Extremely more important
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate scores
Experience and judgment slightly favor one over the other
Experience and judgment strongly favor one over the other
Experience and judgment very strongly favor one over the other
The evidence favoring one over the other is of the highest possible affirmation

123
Neural Comput & Applic

2 3
a11  a16 2.2 Technique for order preference by similarity
6 . .. .. 7 to ideal solution (TOPSIS)
A ¼ 4 .. . . 5 ð1Þ
a61  a66
TOPSIS is based on the concept that the chosen alternative
The matrix A is a m 9 m real matrix, where m is the should have the shortest geometric distance from the pos-
number of evaluation criteria considered. Each entry ajk of itive ideal solution and the longest geometric distance from
the matrix A represents the importance of the jth criterion the negative ideal solution. It is a method of compensatory
relative to the kth criterion. If ajk [ 1, then the jth criterion aggregation that compares a set of alternatives by classi-
is more important than the kth criterion, while if ajk [ 1, fying weights for each criterion, normalizing scores for
then the jth criterion is less important than the kth criterion. each criterion, and determining the geometric distance
If two criteria have the same importance, then the entry ajk between each alternative and the ideal alternative, which is
is 1. The entries ajk and akj satisfy the following constraint: the best score in each criterion.
ajkakj = 1. The initial step in TOPSIS, like in any other multi-cri-
Equation 2 is used to find the operator equation of teria decision-making technique, is to select the criteria and
matrix for normalizing. the alternatives. After that, the criteria are given weights by
the decision makers. Then the alternatives are given scores
X
j¼1
w¼ aij ¼ ½w1 ; . . .; w6  ð2Þ for each criterion and the decision matrix is formed.
j¼6 The first step is to form the decision matrix using Eq. 6.
2 3
After the pair-wise comparison matrices are com- x11    x1n
6 . .. .. 7
plete, the next step is to normalize the matrix using DM ¼ 4 .. . . 5 ð6Þ
operator equation determined by Eq. 2. This is done xm1    xmn
using Eq. 3.
2 3 The decision matrix is then normalized using Eq. 7.
a11    a16 xij
X
j¼1
6 . h i
A= ¼ 1 6 . .. .. 7
7: 1=    1= NDM ¼ rij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm 2 ð7Þ
w a ij :wj ¼ 4 . . . 5 w1 w6 x
i¼1 ij
j¼6
a61    a66
2 a11 3 The weighted normalized decision matrix is formed
=w1    a16=w6
6 . using Eq. 8.
¼6 .. .. 7
7
4 .. . . 5 ð3Þ V ¼ vij ¼ wj :rij ð8Þ
a61= a
w1    66=w6 The positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution
The next step is to determine the normalized principle are determined for each criterion using Eqs. 9 and 10,
eigenvector using Eq. 4. respectively.
 
2 a11 3 PIS ¼ Vjþ ¼ MAXi Vij ð9Þ
=w1    a16=w6 2 1 3
1Xa 
j¼1
6 .  
Wj ¼ ¼6 .. .. .. 77 6 .. 7 1 NIS ¼ Vj ¼ MINi Vij ð10Þ
n j¼6
1j
w j 4 . . 5:4 . 5:n
a61= a 1 The geometric distance of each alternative from the
w1    66=w6
2 j¼1 3 positive and negative ideal solutions is calculated using
1Xa  Eqs. 11 and 12, respectively.
6 1j
w1 7
6 n j¼6 7 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6 7 uX
6 7 u n  þ 2
¼66
.. 7
7 ð4Þ Si ¼ t Vj  Vij ð11Þ
6 . 7 j¼1
61X j¼1
 7
4 a6j 5 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
w6 uX
n j¼6 0 u n   2
Si ¼ t Vj  Vij ð12Þ
The final weights of the alternatives are determined using j¼1

Eq. 5.
The relative closeness to the ideal solution is determined
W ¼ MMULTðArrayi ; Arrayj Þ ð5Þ using Eq. 13

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Headlamp Supplier

Product Price/cost Quality of Manufacturing Warranty On me Environmental Brand name

quality relaonship capability delivery performance

Lumax Automove Lighng Bosch

Fig. 1 AHP hierarchy for headlamp supplier selection

Table 2 Aggregated pair-wise

Criteria PQ P/C QOR MC W OTD EP BNOS
comparison of the criteria
Product quality (PQ) 1 1 2 5 3 2 4 3
Price/cost (P/C) 1 1 3 4 2 2 3 2
Quality of relationship (QOR) 1/2 1/3 1 3 1 ‘ 1 1
Manufacturing capability (MC) 1/5  1/3 1 1/3  1/2 1/2
Warranty (W) 1/3 ‘ 1 3 1 ‘ 1 1
On-time delivery (OTD) 1/2 ‘ 2 4 2 1 3 3
Environmental performance (EP) 1/4 1/3 1 2 1 1/3 1 1
Brand name of supplier (BNOS) 1/3 ‘ 1 2 1 1/3 1 1
P
Sum = each column 4 1/9 4 3/7 11 1/3 24 11 1/3 7 14 1/2 12 1/2

Table 3 Normalized criteria

PQ P/C QOR MC W OTD EP BNOS Average
matrix and weights
PQ 0.242 0.226 0.176 0.208 0.264 0.289 0.275 0.240 0.240482
P/C 0.242 0.226 0.264 0.166 0.176 0.289 0.206 0.160 0.216653
QOR 0.121 0.075 0.088 0.125 0.088 0.072 0.068 0.080 0.089957
MC 0.048 0.056 0.029 0.041 0.029 0.036 0.034 0.040 0.039538
W 0.080 0.113 0.088 0.125 0.088 0.0722 0.068 0.080 0.089613
OTD 0.121 0.113 0.176 0.166 0.176 0.144 0.206 0.240 0.168218
EP 0.060 0.075 0.088 0.083 0.088 0.048 0.068 0.080 0.074145
BNOS 0.080 0.113 0.088 0.083 0.088 0.048 0.068 0.080 0.081393

0
S from two experts, and those were aggregated by taking
RelativeCloseness ¼ Ci ¼ 0 i 
Si þ S i
The alternative with the highest relative closeness is the
best alternative.
3 Numerical illustration
The present case discusses the supplier selection of head-
lamps in leading automobile company in India. The criteria
were identified and shortlisted after interviewing industry
experts. The inputs were taken in pair-wise comparison
ð13Þ their average values. The methodology explained in pre-
vious section is adopted to assign weights and rank the
alternatives. The hierarchy of the supplier selection is
shown in Fig. 1.
Step 1 Assigning weight to criteria
The aggregated pair-wise comparisons of the criteria on
the Saaty scale are shown in Table 2. Equation 2 is used to
find the operator equation of the matrix.
Equations 3 and 4 are used to normalize the matrix and
assign weights to the criteria. The normalized matrix and
assigned weights are shown in Table 3.

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Table 4 Aggregated pair-wise comparison

Product Quality Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch Price/Cost Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch
Lumax 1 1/5 1/4 Lumax 1 6 6
Automotive Lighting 5 1 2 Automotive Lighting 1/6 1 1
Bosch 4 ½ 1 Bosch 1/6 1 1
Sum=∑each column 10.00 1.70 3.25 Sum=∑each column 1.33 8.00 8.00
a) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the b) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the price/cost criterion
product quality criterion
Manufacturing Capability Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch
Quality of Relationship Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch
Lumax 1 ¼ 1/7
Lumax 1 2 7
Automotive Lighting ½ 1 4 Automotive Lighting 4 1 1/3
Bosch 1/7 ¼ 1 Bosch 7 3 1
Sum=∑each column 1.64 3.25 12.00 Sum=∑each column 12.00 4.25 1.48
c) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for quality of d) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the manufacturing
relationship criterion capability criterion

Warranty Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch On Time Delivery Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch
Lumax 1 1/2 1/5 Lumax 1 2 1/2
Automotive Lighting 2 1 ½ Automotive Lighting 1/2 1 1/4
Bosch 5 2 1 Bosch 2 4 1
Sum=∑each column 8.00 3.50 1.70 Sum=∑each column 3.50 7.00 1.75
e) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the warranty f) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the on time delivery
criterion criterion

Environmental Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch Brand Name of the Supplier Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch
Performance
Lumax 1 1/3 1/7
Lumax 1 1/6 3
Automotive Lighting 6 1 9 Automotive Lighting 3 1 1/2
Bosch 1/3 1/9 1 Bosch 7 2 1
Sum=∑each column 7.33 1.28 13.00 Sum=∑each column 11.00 3.33 1.64
g) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the h) Aggregated pair-wise comparison of the supplier for the brand name of the
environmental performance criterion supplier criterion

Table 5 Normalized matrix and weights

Product Quality Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch Average Price/Cost Lumax Automotive Lighting Bosch Average
Lumax 0.1 0.117647059 0.07692308 0.09819 Lumax 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Automotive Lighting 0.5 0.588235294 0.61538462 0.567873 Automotive Lighting 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Bosch 0.4 0.294117647 0.30769231 0.333937 Bosch 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
5b: Normalized matrix and weights for the price/cost criterion
5a: Normalized matrix and weights for the product quality criterion

Quality of Lumax Automotive Bosch Average Manufacturing Lumax Automotive Bosch Average
Relationship Lighting Capability Lighting
Lumax 0.608696 0.615384615 0.58333333 0.602471 Lumax 0.083333 0.058823529 0.09677419 0.079644
Automotive Lighting 0.304348 0.307692308 0.33333333 0.315124 Automotive 0.333333 0.235294118 0.22580645 0.264811
Lighting
Bosch 0.086957 0.076923077 0.08333333 0.082404 Bosch 0.583333 0.705882353 0.67741935 0.655545
5c: Normalized matrix and weights for the quality of relationship criterion 5d: Normalized matrix and weights for the manufacturing capability criterion

Warranty Lumax Automotive Bosch Average On Time Lumax Automotive Bosch Average
Lighting Delivery Lighting
Lumax 0.125 0.142857143 0.11764706 0.128501 Lumax 0.285714 0.285714286 0.28571429 0.285714
Automotive Lighting 0.25 0.285714286 0.29411765 0.276611 Automotive 0.142857 0.142857143 0.14285714 0.142857
Lighting
Bosch 0.625 0.571428571 0.58823529 0.594888 Bosch 0.571429 0.571428571 0.57142857 0.571429
5e: Normalized matrix and weights for the warranty criterion 5f: Normalized matrix and weights for the on time delivery criterion

Environmental Lumax Automotive Bosch Average Brand Name of Lumax Automotive Bosch Average
Performance Lighting the Supplier Lighting
Lumax 0.136364 0.130434783 0.23076923 0.165856 Lumax 0.090909 0.1 0.08695652 0.092622
Automotive Lighting 0.818182 0.782608696 0.69230769 0.764366 Automotive 0.272727 0.3 0.30434783 0.292358
Lighting
Bosch 0.045455 0.086956522 0.07692308 0.069778 Bosch 0.636364 0.6 0.60869565 0.61502
5g: Normalized matrix and weights for the environmental performance criterion 5h: Normalized matrix and weights for the brand name of the supplier criterion

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Table 6 Weighted standardized decision matrix

Criteria/alternative Lumax Automotive lighting Bosch Max Min

Product quality 0.023613 0.13656349 0.080306 0.13656 0.02361

Price/cost 0.16249 0.027081662 0.027082 0.16249 0.02708
Quality of relationship 0.054196 0.028347593 0.007413 0.05419 0.00741
Manufacturing capability 0.003149 0.010470119 0.025919 0.02591 0.00314
Warranty 0.011515 0.024787926 0.05331 0.05331 0.01151
On-time delivery 0.048062 0.02403121 0.096125 0.09612 0.02403
Environmental performance 0.012297 0.056674176 0.005174 0.05667 0.00517
Brand name of supplier 0.007539 0.02379583 0.050058 0.05005 0.00753
P
AHP result = each column 0.322862 0.331752006 0.345386 (best alternative)

Table 7 Geometric distance

Criteria/alternative Lumax Automotive lighting Bosch
from (a) positive ideal solution
and (b) negative ideal solution (a)
Product quality 0.012758 0 0.003165
Price/cost 0 0.018335411 0.018335
Quality of relationship 0 0.00066816 0.002189
Manufacturing capability 0.000518 0.000238667 0
Warranty 0.001747 0.000813493 0
On-time delivery 0.00231 0.005197491 0
Environmental performance 0.001969 0 0.002652
Brand name of supplier 0.001808 0.000689707 0
P
Si* = H (solution - positive ideal solution)2 0.145294 0.161068089 0.1623
(b)
Product quality 0 0.01275782 0.003214
Price/cost 0.018335 0 0
Quality of relationship 0.002189 0.000438264 0
Manufacturing capability 0 5.35994E-05 0.000518
Warranty 0 0.00017616 0.001747
On-time delivery 0.000577 0 0.005197
Environmental performance 5.07E-05 0.002652297 0
Brand name of supplier 0 0.000264293 0.001808
P
Si’ = H (solution - negative ideal solution)2 0.145439 0.127837529 0.111735

Table 8 Relative closeness

Lumax Automotive lighting Bosch

Si* ? Si’ 0.290732 0.288905619 0.274035

Si’/(Si* ? Si’) 0.500249 (best alternative) 0.442488899 0.40774

It can be seen from Table 3 that product quality (PQ) is
the most important selection criteria with a weight of
0.240482 followed by price/cost and on-time delivery. The
least important criterion is manufacturing capability.
Step 2 Assigning weights to suppliers with respect to
criteria
For each criterion, the suppliers are compared on the
Saaty scale. Table 4a–h shows the aggregated comparison
of alternatives for each criterion. The operator equation for
each matrix is formed using Eq. 2. Equations 3 and 4 are
used to normalize the comparison matrices of the suppliers
for each criterion. Table 5a–h shows the normalized
matrices and assigned weights.
Step 3 Rank suppliers using AHP.
The weighted normalized decision matrix is constructed
using Eq. 8. The ranking of the suppliers based on AHP is

123
Neural Comput & Applic

Table 9 Summary of the consistency test calculated using Eq. 5 or by finding the sum of columns of
Pair-wise comparison matrix Consistency ratio (%)
the weighted standardized decision matrix. Table 6 shows
the weighted standardized decision matrix. The positive
Criteria 1.61091206 and negative ideal solutions are obtained using Eqs. 9 and
Product quality 2.37091849 10, respectively.
Price/cost 0.00000000
Step 4 Rank suppliers using TOPSIS
Quality of relationship 0.19057978
Manufacturing capability 3.12829819 The geometric distances from the positive and negative
Warranty 0.53256737 ideal solutions are calculated using Eqs. 11 and 12,
On-time delivery 0.00000000 respectively. Table 7a, b shows the geometric distance of
Environmental performance 5.23066173 the solution from the positive and the negative ideal solu-
Brand name of supplier 0.25402362 tions, respectively.

Fig. 2 Sensitivity analysis (a) Sensitivity Analysis of the Product Quality Factor (b) Sensitivity Analysis of the Price/Cost Factor
Bosch Bosch
Automove Lighng Automove Lighng
Lumax Lumax

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Alternave Score Alternave Score

(c) Sensitivity Analysis of the Quality of

(d) Sensitivity Analysis of the Manufacturing
Relationship Factor
Capability Factor
Bosch
Bosch
Automove Lighng
Automove Lighng
Lumax
Lumax
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Alternave Score
Alternave Score

(e) Sensitivity Analysis of the Warranty Factor (f) Sensitivity Analysis of the On Time
Delivery Factor
Bosch Bosch
Automove Lighng
Automove Lighng
Lumax
Lumax
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Alternave Score
Alternave Score
(g) Sensitivity Analysis of the Environmental (h) Sensitivity Analysis of the Brand Name of the
Performance Factor Supplier Factor
Bosch Bosch
Automove Lighng Automove Lighng
Lumax Lumax

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Alternave Score Alternave Score
(i) Sensitivity Analysis with Equal Weights

Bosch
Automove Lighng
Lumax

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Alternave Score

123
 Neural Comput & Applic

Fig. 3 Sensitivity analysis graph of the AHP results

Table 10 Ranking of the suppliers based on the AHP results comparison matrix and alternative matrices. A summary of
Supplier Weight Rank the consistency test is shown in Table 9.

Bosch 0.345386 1 3.2 Sensitivity analysis of the AHP results

Automotive Lighting 0.331752006 2
Lumax 0.322862 3 The sensitivity analysis is performed in order to test the
stability of the priority ranking. In sensitivity analysis, one
criterion is assigned a weight of 90 % and the 10 % is
Table 11 Ranking of the suppliers based on the TOPSIS results distributed among the other criteria in the ratio of the
weights assigned in the beginning; this is done for all cri-
Supplier Weight Rank
teria. The final AHP result is calculated in each case. The
Lumax 0.500249 1 criteria are also assigned equal weights. The nine cases of
Automotive Lighting 0.442488899 2 the sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 2a–i.
Bosch 0.40774 3 The overall sensitivity graph of the AHP results is
shown in Fig. 3. The scores of the suppliers are on the
y-axis, and the criteria are on the x-axis. The average/
The relative closeness is determined using Eq. 13. overall results are also shown in the graph.
Table 8 shows the relative closeness of different
alternatives.
Lumax is found to be the best alternative among the 4 Results and discussion
three alternatives, because its relative closeness is maxi-
mum with a value of 0.500249. The second best is Auto- The AHP results indicate that Bosch is the best supplier
motive Lighting with value of relative closeness equal to followed by Automotive Lighting and Lumax as shown in
0.442488899. Table 10.
The TOPSIS results, however, indicate that Lumax is
3.1 Consistency test the best supplier followed by Automotive Lighting and
Bosch as shown in Table 11.
The consistency test is performed in order to ensure that all The consistency of all the comparison matrices is gen-
the expert inputs are consistent. It is done for the criteria erally high. The consistency ratio is always less than 10 %.

123
Neural Comput & Applic
The results of the sensitivity analysis of AHP mirror the
AHP results. However, the results of the sensitivity anal-
ysis of TOPSIS are the opposite of the TOPSIS results.
Therefore, it is concluded that in this case the AHP results
are more robust and are used for the final ranking of the
suppliers. Bosch is the best supplier followed by Auto-
motive Lighting and Lumax.
5 Conclusion
This paper has illustrated case study for the supplier
selection of headlamps in leading automobile company in
India. The eight criteria were investigated in the context of
supplier selection problem.
Moreover, this study highlights the two valuable con-
tributions: (a) comprehensive structure of this paper is to
address the supplier selection problem, in this context a
hybrid AHP-TOPSIS methodology has been utilized to
determine the relative importance of the supplier selection
factors via Saaty scales. (b) Accordingly, there are limited
studies on hybrid MCDM (AHP-TOPSIS) methods for
investigating supplier selection problem. Subsequently, the
future work in this area can be to develop new criteria’s by
adopting the new framework and hybrid computational
intelligence techniques such as neuro-fuzzy, fuzzy-genetic
and other optimization methods (particle swarm opti-
mization, ant colony optimization and so on. The results
obtained in this paper have been compared with proposed
method, which is the new avenue for future research.
References
1. Al Maliki A, Owen G, Bruce D (2012) Combining AHP and
TOPSIS approaches to support site selection for a lead pollution
study. Doctoral dissertation, IACSIT Press
2. Alsuwehri YN (2011) Supplier evaluation and selection by using
the analytic hierarchy process approach. Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Kansas
3. Aly MF, Attia HA, Mohammed AM (2013) Integrated fuzzy
(GMM)-TOPSIS model for best design concept and material
selection process. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 2(11):
6464–6486
4. Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A
state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl
39(17):13051–13069
5. Beşkese A, Şakra A (2010) A model proposal for supplier
selection in automotive industry. In: 14th international
research/expert conference TMT
6. Büyüközkan G (2012) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group
decision-making approach for green supplier evaluation. Int J
Prod Res 50(11):2892–2909
7. Cabala P (2010) Using the analytic hierarchy process in evalu-
ating decision alternatives. Oper Res Decis 1:1–23
8. Chamodrakas I, Batis D, Martakos D (2010) Supplier selection in
electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP. Expert
Syst Appl 37(1):490–498
9. Christopher M, Mena C, Khan O, Yurt O (2011) Approaches to
managing global sourcing risk. Supply Chain Manag Int J
16(2):67–81
10. Dalalah D, Al-Oqla F, Hayajneh M (2010) Application of the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the
selection of cranes. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 4(5):567–578
11. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) Supplier selection
using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst
Appl 41(1):156–167
12. Dyer JH, Cho DS, Chu W (1998) Strategic supplier segmentation:
the next ‘‘best practice’’ in supply chain management. Calif
Manag Rev 40(2):57–77
13. Gopal J, Sangaiah AK, Basu A, Gao XZ (2015) Integration of
fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM approach for evaluating knowl-
edge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome.
Int J Mach Learn Cybernet. doi:10.1007/s13042-015-0370-5
14. Gülen KG (2007) Supplier selection and outsourcing strategies in
supply chain management. J Aeronaut Space Technol 3(2):1–6
15. Gürler AGİ (2007) Supplier selection criteria of Turkish auto-
motive industry. J Yaşar Univ 2(6):555–569
16. Handfield R, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA (2002) Applying
environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the
application of the analytical hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res
141(1):70–87
17. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making
approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature
review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24
18. Jamil N, Besar R, Sim HK (2013) A study of multicriteria
decision making for supplier selection in automotive industry.
J Ind Eng 2013:1–22, Article ID 841584. doi:10.1155/2013/
841584
19. Koprulu A, Albayrakoglu MM (2007) Supply chain management in
the textile industry: a supplier selection model with the analytical
hierarchy process. In: Proceeding of the international symposium
on the analytic hierarchy process, Viña Del Mar, Chile
20. Kornyshova E, Salinesi C (2007) MCDM techniques selection
approaches: state of the art. In: IEEE symposium on computa-
tional intelligence in multicriteria decision making, pp. 22–29
21. Kumar S, Parashar N, Haleem A (2009) Analytical hierarchy
process applied to vendor selection problem: small scale, medium
scale and large scale industries. Bus Intell J 2(2):355–362
22. Liao CN, Kao HP (2010) Supplier selection model using Taguchi
loss function, analytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal
programming. Comput Ind Eng 58(4):571–577
23. Marufuzzaman M, Ahsan KB, Xing K (2009) Supplier selection
and evaluation method using Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP): a case study on an apparel manufacturing organisation.
Int J Value Chain Manag 3(2):224–240
24. Özkan B, Başlıgil H, Şahin N (2011) Supplier selection using
analytic hierarchy process: an application from Turkey. In: Pro-
ceedings of the world congress on engineering, vol 2, pp. 6–8
25. Pitchipoo P, Venkumar P, Rajakarunakaran S (2013) Fuzzy
hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int J
Prod Res 51(13):3903–3919
26. Rezaei J, Ortt R (2013) Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using
a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur J Oper Res
225(1):75–84
27. Rouyendegh BD, Saputro TE (2014) Supplier selection using
integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: a case study. Procedia Soc
Behav Sci 116:3957–3970
28. Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and
how it is used. Math Model 9(3):161–176
29. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy
process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26
30. Sadeghzadeh K, Salehi MB (2011) Mathematical analysis of fuel
cell strategic technologies development solutions in the
123

automotive industry by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision
making method. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(20):13272–13280
31. Sagar MK, Singh D (2012) Supplier selection criteria: study of
automobile sector in India. Int J Eng Res Dev 4(4):34–39
32. Sangaiah AK, Subramaniam PR, Zheng X (2015) A combined
fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for evaluating
GSD project outcome factors. Neural Comput Appl 26(5):
1025–1040
33. Sangaiah AK, Gopal J, Basu A, Subramaniam PR (2015) An
integrated fuzzy DEMATEL, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE approach
for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to
GSD project outcome. Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/
s00521-015-2040-7
34. Sangaiah AK, Gao XZ, Ramachandran M, Zheng X (2015) A
fuzzy DEMATEL approach based on intuitionistic fuzzy infor-
mation for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness in GSD
projects. Int J Innovative Comput Appl 6(3–4):203–215
35. Shakey BK (2006) Supplier selection using AHP and promethee-
2. Int J Sci Res 6:156–160
123
Neural Comput & Applic
36. Verma DS, Pateriya A (2013) Supplier selection through ana-
lytical hierarchy process: a case study in small scale manufac-
turing organization. Int J Eng Trends Technol 4(5):1428–1433
37. Viswanadham N, Vedula S, Kulkarni R (2013) Orchestrating the
print supply chain in emerging markets. In: 2013 IEEE interna-
tional conference on automation science and engineering
(CASE), pp. 213–218
38. Xu L, Kumar DT, Shankar KM, Kannan D, Chen G (2013)
Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social
responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):907–916
39. Yilmaz O, Gülsün B, Güneri AF, Özgürler Ş, Endüstri BY,
Besiktas MB (2011) Supplier selection of a textile company with
ANP. In: 15th international research/expert conference, ‘‘Trends
in the development of machinery and associated technology’’,
TMT 2011, Prague, Czech Republic
40. Zarbini-Sydani A, Karbasi A, Atef-Yekta E (2011) Evaluating
and selecting supplier in textile industry using hierarchical fuzzy
TOPSIS. Indian J Sci Technol 4(10):1322–1334