SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2

DEVELOPING A NEW MODEL FOR SUPPLIER EVALUATION PROCESS FOR A COMPANY AND ITS APPLICATION

BİR İŞLETMEDE TEDARİKÇİ DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ İÇİN YENİ BİR MODEL TASARIMI VE UYGULAMASI

Metin Dağdeviren
Nilay Dönmez
Mustafa Kurt
Pages
247–255
Publication Date
2013-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The proposed supplier evaluation model is verified with the supplier representatives and it is determined to use this model periodically.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Today, the role of working with the right suppliers in achieving the goals of the companies is getting more important.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Many companies, which used to evaluate their suppliers with traditional methods, are now seeking for new evaluation methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The proposed supplier evaluation model is verified with the supplier representatives and it is determined to use this model periodically.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tedarikçi değerlendirme · çok kriterli analiz · analitik ağ prosesi.

Abstract

Today, the role of working with the right suppliers in achieving the goals of the companies is getting more important. Many companies, which used to evaluate their suppliers with traditional methods, are now seeking for new evaluation methods. In this study, a new supplier evaluation method is developed for a company. The Analytical Network Process (ANP) method is used in the proposed model. ANP is a multi criteria decision making method that takes into account the dependence and feedback among the factors affecting the decision making process. The proposed supplier evaluation model is verified with the supplier representatives and it is determined to use this model periodically.

Özet

Günümüzde doğru tedarikçilerle çalışmanın, işletmelerin hedeflerine ulaşmasındaki rolü gittikçe önem kazanmaktadır. Geçmişte alışılagelmiş yöntemlerle tedarikçi değerlendiren birçok işletme, bugün yeni değerlendirme yöntemleri arayışı içindedir. Bu çalışmada, bir işletme için yeni bir tedarikçi değerlendirme modeli geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen modelde Analitik Ağ Prosesi (AAP) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. AAP karar verme sürecini etkileyen faktörler arasındaki her türlü bağımlılık ve geri beslemeyi dikkate alan çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemlerinden biridir. Önerilen tedarikçi değerlendirme modeli tedarikçi temsilcileri ile birlikte değerlendirilmiş ve belirli periyotlarla kullanılmasına karar verilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dağdeviren, M., Dönmez, N., Kurt, M. (2013). DEVELOPING A NEW MODEL FOR SUPPLIER EVALUATION PROCESS FOR A COMPANY AND ITS APPLICATION. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 247–255. https://ajindex.com/articles/1078977

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (136)

  1. Turban, A.J., Decision Support Systems and
  2. Intelligence Systems, Prentice Hall, New York,
  3. A.B.D., 1998.
  4. Çetinyokuş, T., Tedarikçi Performansının
  5. Değerlendirilmesi İçin Bir Karar Destek
  6. Sistemi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi,
  7. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2003.
  8. Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V.,
  9. “Measurement of business performance in
  10. syrategy research: a comparison of approaches”,
  11. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-, 1986.
  12. Germain, R., Droge, C., “Wholesale operations
  13. and vendor evaluation”, Journal of Business
  14. Research, 21(2), 119-129, 1990.
  15. Mentzer, J.T., Konrad, B.P., “An
  16. efficiency/effectiveness approach to logistics
  17. performance analysis”, Journal of Business
  18. Logistics, 12(1), 33-62, 1991.
  19. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, C., “Vendor
  20. selection criteria and methods”, European
  21. Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18,
  22. Limmerick, D., Cunnington, B., Managing the
  23. New Organization-A Blue Print for Network
  24. and Strategic Alliances, Business and
  25. Professional Publishing, Sydney, 1993.
  26. Chao, C., Scheuing, E.E., Ruch, W.A.,
  27. “Purchasing performance evaluation: an
  28. investigation of different perspectives”,
  29. International Journal of Purchasing and
  30. Materials Management, 29(3), 33-39, 1993.
  31. Mummalaneni, V., Dubas, K.M., Chao, C.,
  32. “Chinese purchasing managers preferences and
  33. trade-offs in supplier selection and performance
  34. evaluation”, Industrial Marketing
  35. Management, 25(1), 115-124, 1996.
  36. Krause, D.R., “Supplier development: current
  37. practices and outcomes”, International Journal
  38. of Purchasing and Materials Management,
  39. , 12-19, 1997.
  40. Roodhooft, F., Konings, J., “Vendor selection
  41. and evaluation an activity based costing
  42. approach”, European Journal of Operational
  43. Research, 96(2), 97-102, 1997.
  44. Humphreys, P., Mcvor, R., Chan, F., “Using
  45. case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier
  46. environmental management performance”,
  47. Expert Systems with Application, 25(2), 141-, 2003.
  48. Schmitz, J., Platts, K.W., “Supplier logistics
  49. performance measurement: Indications from a
  50. study in the automotive industry”, International
  51. Journal of Production Economics, 89(2), 231-, 2004.
  52. Hartley, J.L., Choi, T.Y., “Supplier development:
  53. customers as a catalyst of process change”,
  54. Business Horizons, 39(4), 37-44, 1996.
  55. Porter, A.M., “Supplier evaluation revisited”,
  56. Purchasing, 111(6), 58-68, 1991.
  57. Purdy, L., Astad, U., Safayeni, F., “Perceived
  58. effectiveness of the automotive supplier
  59. evaluation process”, International Journal of
  60. Operations and Production Management,
  61. , 91-103, 1994.
  62. Forker L.B., Ruch, W.A., Hershauer, J.C.,
  63. “Examining supplier improvement efforts from
  64. both sides”, The Journal of Supply Chain
  65. Management, 35(3), 40-50, 1999.
  66. Park, S., Hartley, J.L., Wilson, D., “Quality
  67. management practices and their relationship to
  68. buyer’s supplier ratings: a study in the Korean
  69. automotive industry”, Journal of Operations
  70. Management, 19(1), 695-712, 2001.
  71. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
  72. McGraw-Hill, New York, A.B.D., 1980.
  73. Saaty, T.L., Decision Making with Dependence
  74. and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process,
  75. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, A.B.D., 1996.
  76. Karsak, E.E., Sozer, S., Alptekin, S.E.,
  77. ”Production planning in quality function
  78. deployment using a combined analytical network
  79. process and goal programming approach”,
  80. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(1),
  81. 190, 2002.
  82. Chung, S.H., Lee, A.H.L., Pearn, W.L., “Analytic
  83. network process (ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator”,
  84. International Journal of Production
  85. Economics, In press, 2004.
  86. Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., “Analyzing
  87. organizational project alternatives for agile
  88. manufacturing processes: an analytical network
  89. approach”, International Journal of Production
  90. Research, 37(2), 241-261, 1999.
  91. Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., “Strategic analysis of
  92. logistics and supply chain management systems
  93. using the analytical network process”,
  94. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
  95. and Transportation Review, 34(3), 201-215,
  96. Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., “An integrated approach
  97. for independent information system project
  98. selection”, International Journal of Project
  99. Management, 19(2), 111-118 2001.
  100. Lee, J.W., Kim, S.H., “Using analytic network
  101. process and goal programming for interdependent
  102. information system project selection”,
  103. Computers & Operations Research, 27(4),
  104. 382, 2001.
  105. Partovi, F.Y., Corredoira, R.A., “Quality function
  106. deployment for the good of soccer”, European
  107. Journal of Operational Research, 137(3), 642-, 2002.
  108. Meade, L.M., Presley, A., “R&D project
  109. selection using the analytic network process”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
  110. Management, 49(1), 59-66, 2002.
  111. Bayazıt, O., “A new methodology in multiple
  112. criteria decision-making systems: analytical
  113. network process and an application”, Ankara
  114. Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,
  115. , 15-34 2002.
  116. Sarkis, J., “A model for strategic supplier
  117. selection”, Journal of Supply Chain
  118. Management, 38(1), 18-28, 2002.
  119. Mikhailov, L., Singh, M.S., “Fuzzy analytic
  120. network process and its application to the
  121. development of decision support systems”, IEEE
  122. Transactions on Systems, Man, and
  123. Cybernetics-Part C: Applications and
  124. Reviews, 33(1), 33-41, 2003.
  125. Yurdakul, M., “Measuring long-term
  126. performance of a manufacturing firm using the
  127. analytical network process (ANP) approach”,
  128. International Journal of Production Research,
  129. , 2501-2529, 2003.
  130. Momoh, J.A., Zhu, J., “Optimal generationscheduling
  131. based on AHP/ANP”, IEEE
  132. Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics, 33(3), 531-
  133. Niemira, M.P., Saaty, T.L., “An analytical
  134. network process model for financial-crisis
  135. forecasting”, International Journal of
  136. Forecasting, Article in Press, 2004.