Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 1 Criteria for evaluating supplier quality
Perspective
Criteria (id)
Category
Product quality
Customer satisfaction (C1)
B
Environmental considerations (C2)
B
Product features (C3)
B
Documentation (C4)
B
Product design (C5)
B
Conformance to standards (C6)
B
Process quality
Technical capability (C7)
B
Nonconformities/Defects generated during production
(C8)
C
Statistical process control (C9)
B
Process capability index (Cp > 1.33) (C10)
B
Service quality
Quality of service (responsiveness) (C11)
B
Reliability (C12)
B
Flexibility (C13)
B
Handling of returned material and warranties (C14)
B
Organizational
quality
Quality certi
cations (C15)
B
Employee training (C16)
B
Management commitment (C17)
B
B Bene
t (the higher the better), C Cost (the lower the better)
Table 2 Linguistic ratings
for alternatives
Linguistic term
Membership function
Very poor (VP)
(1, 1, 3)
Poor (P)
(1, 3, 5)
Fair (F)
(3, 5, 7)
Good (G)
(5, 7, 9)
Very good (VG)
(7, 9, 9)
Table 3 Linguistic ratings
for criteria
Linguistic term
Membership function
Very low
(1, 1, 3)
Low
(1, 3, 5)
Medium
(3, 5, 7)
High
(5, 7, 9)
Very high
(7, 9, 9)
linguistics terms are then transformed to fuzzy triangular numbers (Azar
2010a
,
b
).
Then, fuzzy TOPSIS (Sect.
3
) is applied to aggregate the criteria and the alternative
ratings to generate an overall score for assessing supplier quality (alternatives). The
alternative with the highest score is
finally chosen.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search