Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Flexible dynamic sustainable procurement model

  • OR in Transportation
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Management of global supply chains is a challenging task due to the uncertainties leading to supply chain disruption. This requires the supply chains to be not only effective and efficient but also flexible in their operations to mitigate these disruptions. It has been observed that supply chains are mostly influenced by suppliers and carriers; hence, a business firm needs to be flexible and sustainable in selection of suppliers and carriers to overcome any disruptions. This paper proposes a flexible dynamic sustainable procurement (FDSP) framework for global supply chains by considering not only qualitative parameters such as quality, reliability, social and environmental factors for the selection of suppliers as well as carriers but also taking into account quantitative preferences such as cost, supplier capacity and carrier capacity. However, independently using quantitative parameters might allocate order quantities to the suppliers and carriers which are least preferred based on other qualitative parameters. Therefore, the proposed FDSP model provides flexibility by integrating the quantitative and qualitative parameters to allocate order quantities to suppliers and carriers preferred by both the sets. Hence, the proposed FDSP model provides a range of possible integrated solutions and business firm can select the best suited solution having least deviation. The deviations are computed from integrated optimal solution provided by FDSP and quantitative models. The proposed FDSP model is solved for a case illustration to demonstrate the proposed framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggarwal, R., & Singh, S. P. (2015). Chance constraint-based multi-objective stochastic model for supplier selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 79(9–12), 1707–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aissaoui, N., Haouari, M., & Hassini, E. (2007). Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review. Computers & Operations Research, 34, 3516–3540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, R. J., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., & Palaniappan, P. L. K. (2016). Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process. Annals of Operations Research, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2170-z.

  • Benjaafar, S., Li, Y., & Daskin, M. (2013). Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: Insights from simple models. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 10(1), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, M., & Jaber, M. Y. (2011). Environmentally responsible inventory models: Non-classical models for a non-classical era. International Journal of Production Economics, 133, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchery, Y., Ghaffari, A., Jemai, Z., & Dallery, Y. (2012). Including sustainability criteria into inventory models. European Journal of Operational Research, 222, 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, F. T. S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C. W., & Choy, K. L. (2008). Global supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research, 46(14), 3825–3857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. T., Lin, C. T., & Huang, S. F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 102, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Federgruen, A., & Zheng, Y. S. (2001). Coordination mechanisms for a distribution system with one supplier and multiple retailers. Management Science, 47(5), 693–708.

  • Chiang, W. C., & Russell, R. A. (2004). Integrating purchasing and routing in a propane gas supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(3), 710–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cholette, S., & Venkat, K. (2009). The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 1401–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2013). Joint decision of procurement lot-size, supplier selection, and carrier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2014). A goal programming model for joint decision making of inventory lot-size, supplier selection and carrier selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 71, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, W. D., & Seiford, L. M. (1982). On the Borda–Kendall consensus method for priority ranking problems. Management Science, 28(6), 621–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European journal of purchasing & supply management, 7(2), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraering, M., & Prasad, S. (1999). International sourcing and logistics: An integrated model. Logistics Information Management, 12(6), 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaballa, A. A. (1974). Minimum cost allocation of tenders. Operational Research Quarterly, 25, 389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsypour, S., & O’Brien, 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, 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haq, A. N., & Kannan, G. (2006). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29, 826–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmrich, M. R., Van den Heuvel, W., & Wagelm, A. P. (2011). The economic lot-sizing problem with an emission constraint, 2nd international workshop on lot sizing, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 45–48).

  • Hsu, C. W., Chen, S. H., & Chiou, C. Y. (2011). A model for carbon management of supplier selection in green supply chain management. In IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), Singapore (pp. 1247 – 1250).

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple criteria decision making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186, 58–191.

  • Jaber, M. Y., Glock, C. H., & El Saadany, A. M. (2013). Supply chain coordination with emissions reduction incentives. International Journal of Production Research, 51(1), 69–82.

  • Jensen, R. E. (1986). Comparison of consensus methods for priority ranking problems. Decision Sciences, 17(2), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, H., & Singh, S. P. (2016). Modelling flexible procurement problem. In Sushil, K. T. Bhal, & S. P. Singh (Eds.), Managing flexibility: people, process, technology and business (pp. 147–170). New Delhi: Springer.

  • Kaur, H., Singh, S. P., & Glardon, R. (2016). An integer linear program for integrated supplier selection: A sustainable flexible framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(2), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, P., Al-khateeb, F., & Miller, P. A. (2003). Partnership and negotiation support by joint optimal ordering/setup policies for JIT. International Journal of Production Economics, 81, 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R., & Singh S. P. (2015). AHP-IRP: An integrated approach for decision making. International conference on evidence based management 2015 (ICEBM) (pp. 605-612). ISBN: 978-93984935-18-4.

  • Li, Y., Cai, X., Xu, L., & Yang, W. (2015). Heuristic approach on dynamic lot-sizing model for durable products with end-of-use constraints. Annals of Operations Research, 242, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2015). Optimal procurement strategies from suppliers with random yield and all-or-nothing risks. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1923-4.

  • Liao, Z., & Rittscher, J. (2007). Integration of supplier selection, procurement lot sizing and carrier selection under dynamic demand conditions. International Journal of Production Economics, 107, 502–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. K., & Yeh, C. T. (2013). Determine the optimal carrier selection for a logistics network based on multi-commodity reliability criterion. International Journal of Systems Science, 44(5), 949–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purohit, A. K., Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2016a). Inventory lot-sizing with supplier selection under non-stationary stochastic demand. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2459–2469.

  • Purohit, A. K., Shankar, R., Dey, P. K., & Choudhary, A. (2016b). Non-stationary stochastic inventory lot-sizing with emission and service level constraints in a carbon cap-and-trade system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 654–661.

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shyur, H., & Shih, H. (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44, 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songhori, M. J., Tavana, M., Azadeh, A., & Khakbaz, M. Z. (2011). A supplier selection and order allocation model with multiple transportation alternatives. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 52, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stank, T. P., & Goldsby, T. J. (2000). A framework for transportation decision making in an integrated supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil (2009). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.

  • Swenseth, S. R., & Godfrey, M. R. (2002). Incorporating transportation costs into inventory replenishment decisions. International Journal of Production Economics, 77(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiakis, P., Shah, N., & Pantelides, C. C. (2001). Design of multi-echelon supply chain networks under demand uncertainty. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 40(16), 3585–3604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubeda, S., Arcelus, F. J., & Faulin, J. (2011). Green logistics at Eroski: A case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 44–51.

  • Venkat, K. (2007). Analyzing and optimizing the environmental performance of supply chains. Proceedings of the ACCEE summer study on energy efficiency in industry, White Plains, New York, USA.

  • Vijayvargiya, A., & Dey, A. K. (2010). An analytical approach for selection of a logistics provider. Management Decision, 48(3), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, H. M., & Whitin, T. M. (1958). Dynamic version of the economic lot size model. Management science, 5(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Samuel, H. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2004). Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International Journal of Production Economics, 91, 1–15.

  • Ware, N. R., Singh, S. P., & Banwet, D. K. (2014b). A mixed-integer non-linear program to model dynamic supplier selection problem. Expert System With Applications, 41, 671–678.

  • Ware, N. R., Singh, S. P., & Banwet, D. K. (2014a). Modeling flexible supplier selection framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 261–274.

  • Xia, W., & Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments. Omega, 35, 494–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. H., & Regan, A. C. (2013). A multi-criteria decision support methodology for implementing truck operation strategies. Transportation, 40(3), 713–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Harpreet Kaur & Surya Prakash Singh

Authors
  1. Harpreet Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Surya Prakash Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Surya Prakash Singh.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Table 12 Mode of DEMATEL responses obtained for carrier criteria
Full size table
Table 13 Pair-wise comparison matrices between carriers for all criteria (AHP)
Full size table
Table 14 Comparison matrix for TOPSIS
Full size table
Table 15 Dominating interaction matrix (IRP and W-IRP)
Full size table
Table 16 Calculation of Net Dominance for carriers using IRP
Full size table
Table 17 Calculation of Net Dominance for carriers using W-IRP
Full size table

Appendix B

See Table 18.

Table 18 Data set for (3T-10P-6S-5M) problem
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaur, H., Singh, S.P. Flexible dynamic sustainable procurement model. Ann Oper Res 273, 651–691 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2434-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2434-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation