Abstract
The vendor selection problem (VSP) is a critical element of the numerous managerial decisions in the consideration of both outsourcing and integrated supply chain management. Many papers in the literature have dealt with VSPs from a multicriteria perspective, but few have looked into the implications of such decisions in a multiechelon supply chain with the explicit consideration of multiple time-phased demands. A new integrated supply chain model is proposed for a multiechelon supply chain. This model takes into account the usual cost objective and other important criteria in a multiechelon supply chain ranging from the most upstream suppliers' quality to end customers' satisfaction level through a large-scale multiobjective linear programme (MOLP). Furthermore, various Pareto optimal solutions can be graphically presented to facilitate decision making and negotiations with existing and potential suppliers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alonso-Ayuso A et al (2003). An approach for strategic supply chain planning under uncertainty based on stochastic 0–1 programming. J Global Optim 26 (1): 97–124.
Baumgarten H and Krokowski W (2003). Trends and Strategies in International Procurement: A Comparison between Asia and Europe. Technical University of Berlin: Berlin.
Bisschops J and Meeraus A (1982). On the development of a general algebraic modeling system in a strategic planning environment. Mathe Programming Study 20: 1–29.
Burton TT (1988). JIT repetitive sourcing strategies: Tying the knot with your suppliers. Prod Invent Mngt J 29: 38–41.
Cakravastia A, Toha IS and Nakamura N (2002). A two-stage model for the design of supply chain networks. Int J Prod Econ 80: 231–248.
Chang CT and Chang SC (2001). On the inventory model with variable lead time and price-quantity discount. J Opl Res Soc 52: 1151–1158.
Chaudry SS, Forst FG and Zydiak JL (1993). Vendor selection with price breaks. Eur J Opl Res 70 (1): 52–66.
Cohon JL (1978). Multiobjective programming and planning. Academic Press Inc.: New York.
Current JR and Weber CA (1994). Application of facility location modeling constructs to vendor selection-problems. Eur J Opl Res 76 (3): 387–392.
Dahel NE (2003). Vendor selection and order quantity allocation in volume discount environments. Supply Chain Mngt: Int J 8 (3–4): 335–342.
Degraeve Z and Roodhooft F (1999). Improving the efficiency of the purchasing process using total cost of ownership information: The case of heating electrodes at Cockerill Sambre SA. Eur J Opl Res 112 (1): 42–53.
Dickson GW (1966). An analysis of vendor selection decisions and systems. J Purchasing 2: 5–17.
Erol I and Ferrell WG (2004). A methodology to support decision making across the supply chain of an industrial distributor. Int J Prod Econ 89 (2): 119–129.
Fourer R, Gay D and Kernighan B (1993). AMPL: a Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. The Scientific Press: San Francisco, CA.
Ghodsypour SH and O'Brien C (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56-7: 199–212.
Ghodsypour SH and O'Brien C (2001). The total cost of logistics in supplier selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity constraint. Int J Prod Econ 73 (1): 15–27.
Hammami A, Burlat P and Campagne JP (2003). Evaluating orders allocation within networks of firms. Int J Prod Econ 86 (3): 233–249.
Heberling M (1990). The dollar magnitude of purchases in American businesses and governments. Proceedings of the Fourth Purchasing and Materials Management Research Symposium, Lehigh University.
Hong J and Hayya JC (1992). Just-in-time purchasing: single or multiple sourcing? Int J Prod Econ 27: 175–181.
ILOG (2003). ILOG OPL Studio 3.7, Reference Manual. ILOG SA: Gentilly, France.
Kasilingam RG and Lee CP (1996). Selection of vendors—A mixed-integer programming approach. Comp Indust Eng 31 (1–2): 347–350.
Kumar M, Vrat P and Shankar R (2004). A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a supply chain. Comp Indust Eng 46 (1): 69–85.
Lee MS, Lee YH and Jeong CS (2003). A high-quality-supplier selection model for supply chain management and ISO 9001 system. Prod Planning and Control 14 (3): 225–232.
Li D and O'Brien C (1999). Integrated decision modelling of supply chain efficiency. Int J Prod Econ 59: 147–157.
Peleg B, Lee HL and Hausman WH (2002). Short-term e-procurement strategies versus long-term contracts. Prod Opns Mngt 11 (4): 458–479.
Rosenblatt MJ, Herer YT and Hefter I (1998). Note. An acquisition policy for a single item multi-supplier system. Mngt Sci 44 (11): S96–S100.
Rosenthal EC, Zydiak JL and Chaudry SS (1995). Vendor selection with bundling. Decision Sciences 26 (1): 35–48.
Sadrian AA and Yoon YS (1991). A Procurement decision support system in business volume discount environment. Opns Res 42 (1): 14–23.
Sarkis J and Semple JH (1999). Vendor selection with bundling: a comment. Decision Sci 30 (1): 265–271.
Stadtler H and Kilger C (eds.) (2002). Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Tagaras G and Lee HL (1996). Economic models for vendor evaluation with quality cost analysis. Mngt Sci 42 (11): 1531–1543.
Viswanadham N and Gaonkar RS (2003). Partner selection and synchronized planning in dynamic manufacturing networks. IEEE Trans Robot and Automat 19 (1): 117–130.
Weber CA and Current JR (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. Eur J Opnl Res 68: 173–184.
Weber CA, Current JR and Benton WC (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Opl Res 50 (1): 2–18.
Weber CA, Current JR and Desai A (2000a). An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Supply Chain Mngt: Int J 5 (2): 90–98.
Weber CA, Current JR and Desai A (2000b). VENDOR: A structured approach to vendor selection and negotiations. J Bus Logist 21 (1): 135–167.
Yahya S and Kingsman B (2002). Modelling a multi-objective allocation problem in a government sponsored entrepreneur development programme. Eur J Opl Res 136 (2): 430–448.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The scenario for computational results described above is described in this Appendix. The various procurement and storage parameters and capacities are listed in Table A1.
The procurement lead times from linked suppliers are shown in Table A2. The procurement schedules are shown in Table A3, and were assumed to recur every two weeks.
Other than the procurement lead times, varying lead times are encountered for the various transportation modes. The various transportation lead times for the supply chain network topology of the TEN model are listed in Table A4. The routing schedules for the various modes of transportation in the supply chain network and their associated capacities are shown in Table A5. The routing schedule recurs every week, hence, only the weekly schedule is shown.
The routing parameters and capacity usage per unit of product or SKU shipped are shown in Table A6.
The production parameters and related production capacities are shown in Table A7. The revenues per unit of product sold are also shown in Table A7.
In addition, the lost sales costs for unmet demands at demand nodes and disposal costs for excessive inventories at the various storage locations are shown in Table A8.
The profiles of expected demands over a 26 weeks (182 days) period at the two DCs and four retailers are shown in Figure A1
Apart from the preceding specifications, initial conditions related to the state of supply chain when decisions are made have to be specified. The state of supply chain contains information of existing pipeline inventories and existing nodal inventories. These are shown in Table A9 and Figure A2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lam, S., Tang, L. Multiobjective vendor allocation in multiechelon inventory systems: a spreadsheet model. J Oper Res Soc 57, 561–578 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602027
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602027