# Multi-Criteria Decision Model for the Selection of Suppliers in the Textile Industry

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

## 3. Methodology

#### 3.1. Theorical Basis

#### 3.1.1. Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model

#### 3.1.2. Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP)

#### 3.1.3. Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE)

_{j}(i,i′). Bran and Mareschal [21] proposed six main type of generalized reference functions [28]. However, these functions require some preferential parameters to be well defined, which, in real world cases, may cause unnecessary difficulties and complexities to the decision makers. Therefore, a simplified preference function is adopted in this study:

## 4. Case Study

#### Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Nhu, H. Khái quát về xuất khẩu hàng dệt may ở Việt Nam và vai trò của nó đối với nền kinh tế. Available online: https://voer.edu.vn/m/khai-quat-ve-xuat-khau-hang-det-may-o-viet-nam-va-vai-tro-cua-no-doi-voi-nen-kinh-te/ebe05f9f (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Luu, D. Dệt may Việt Nam trông chờ tín hiệu sáng 2020. Available online: https://tinnhanhchungkhoan.vn/thuong-truong/det-may-viet-nam-trong-cho-tin-hieu-sang-2020-308761.html (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Nang, D. Ngành dệt may sẽ gặp khó khăn khi Việt Nam tham gia TPP. Available online: http://www.hoatho.com.vn/tin-tuc/thong-tin-trong-nganh/nganh-det-may-se-gap-kho-khan-khi-viet-nam-tham-gia-tpp (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Gencer, C.; Gürpinar, D. Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Appl. Math. Model.
**2007**, 31, 2475–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rouyendegh, B.D.; Erol, S. The dea—Fuzzy anp department ranking model applied in iran amirkabir university. Acta Polytech. Hung.
**2010**, 7, 103–114. [Google Scholar] - Taherdoost, H.; Brard, A. Analyzing the process of supplier selection criteria and methods. Procedia Manuf.
**2019**, 32, 1024–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gul, M.; Guven, B.; Guneri, A.F. A new Fine-Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
**2018**, 53, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, X.; Chen, H.; Ji, Z. Combination of probabilistic linguistic term sets and PROMETHEE to evaluate meteorological disaster risk: Case study of southeastern China. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alikhani, R.; Torabi, S.A.; Altay, N. Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
**2019**, 208, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Liao, H.; Wu, D.; Huang, Y.; Ren, P.; Xu, Z.; Verma, M. Green logistic provider selection with a hesitant fuzzy linguistic thermodynamic method integrating cumulative prospect theory and PROMETHEE. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wang, C.N.; Huang, Y.F.; Cheng, I.; Nguyen, V.T. A multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach using hybrid SCOR metrics, AHP, and TOPSIS for supplier evaluation and selection in the gas and oil industry. Processes
**2018**, 6, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Safari, H.; Fagheyi, M.S.; Ahangari, S.S.; Fathi, M.R. Applying PROMETHEE method based on entropy weight for supplier selection. Bus. Manag. Strategy
**2012**, 3, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Senvar, O.; Tuzkaya, G.; Kahraman, C. Multi Citeria Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE Method. In Supply Chain Management under Fuzziness; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 21–34. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.T.; Pai, P.F.; Hung, W.Z. An integrated methodology using linguistic PROMETHEE and maximum deviation method for third-party logistics supplier selection. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst.
**2010**, 3, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dağdeviren, M. Decision making in equipment selection: An integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J. Intell. Manuf.
**2008**, 19, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pan, W.H.; Li, J.Q. Application of AHP-PROMETHEE Method for Supplier Selection in Strategic Sourcing. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci.
**2009**, 2, 008. [Google Scholar] - Bansal, A.; Kumar, P. 3PL selection using hybrid model of AHP-PROMETHEE. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag.
**2013**, 14, 373–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shakey, B.K. Supplier selection using AHP and promethee-2. Int. J. Sci. Res.
**2006**, 6, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sari, T.; Timor, M. Integrated supplier selection model using ANP, Taguchi loss function and PROMETHEE methods. J. Appl. Quant. Methods
**2016**, 11, 19–34. [Google Scholar] - Brans, J.; Vincke, P.; Mareschal, B. How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**1986**, 24, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Duong, D.H.; Thai, H.T.N. A hybrid fuzzy analysis network process (FANP) and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) approaches for solid waste to energy plant location selection in Vietnam. Appl. Sci.
**2018**, 8, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Duong, D.H.; Do, H.T. A hybrid fuzzy analytic network process (FANP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach for supplier evaluation and selection in the rice supply chain. Symmetry
**2018**, 10, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Jamehshooran, B.G.; Shaharoun, M.; Haron, H.N. Assessing supply chain performance through applying the SCOR model. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag.
**2015**, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] - Theeranuphattana, A.; Tang, J.C. A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply chains. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.
**2008**, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rezaie, K.; Byat, M.; Shirkouhi, S.N. Evaluating effective factors of implementing knowledge management based on FAHP method. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2009 Third Asia International Conference on Modelling & Simulation, Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 May 2009; pp. 398–403. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Thai, H.T.N.; Duong, D.H. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approaches for Solar Power Plant Location Selection in Viet Nam. Energies
**2018**, 11, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Brans, J.; Vincke, P. A Preference Ranking Organisation Method (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Manag. Sci.
**1985**, 31, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ningsih, S.R.; Windarto, A.P. Penerapan Metode Promethee II Pada Dosen Penerima Hibah P2M Internal. InfoTekJar: Jurnal Nasional Informatika dan Teknologi Jaringan
**2018**, 3, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Adelia, F.; Wahyuli, D.; Sari, T.I.; Windarto, A.P. Analisis Promethee II Pada Faktor Penyebab Mahasiswa Sulit Menemukan Judul Artikel Ilmiah. Jurnal Ilmiah KOMPUTASI
**2018**, 17, 131–136. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Research graph. SCOR: Supply Chain Operations Reference; FAHP: Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process; PROMETHEE: preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations.

Performance Attributes | Definition |
---|---|

Reliability | Capable of fulfilling orders in the best way. With confidence, the focus is on the ability to predict results. For example, delivery on time, high quality and appropriate quantity. |

Responsiveness | Express the speed of execution of requests for customers. For example, cycle time. |

Flexibility | Able to respond quickly; high speed to increase competitive advantage. |

Cost | Costs include operating costs, particularly costs of materials, labor and transportation. |

Assets | The ability to use financial resources effectively; being able to quickly execute requests from customers. The ability to use funds, including inventory days and financial uses. |

No. | Main Criteria | Sub-Criteria | Symbol |
---|---|---|---|

1 | Reliability (A) | Delivered the right quantity | A1 |

Fulfill an order request | A2 | ||

Delivery performance | A3 | ||

2 | Responsiveness (B) | Order Fulfillment Cycle Time | B1 |

Delivery time | B2 | ||

Return processing time | B3 | ||

3 | Flexibility (C) | Order fulfillment lead time | C1 |

Production flexibility | C2 | ||

4 | Cost (D) | Transportation cost | D1 |

Returns processing cost | D2 | ||

Materials cost | D3 | ||

5 | Assets (E) | Cash to cash cycle time | E1 |

Asset turns | E2 | ||

Inventory days of supply | E3 | ||

Inventory value | E4 |

Importance Intensity | Definition |
---|---|

1 | Equal importance |

3 | Moderate importance of one over another |

5 | Essential importance |

7 | Demonstrated importance |

9 | Extremely importance |

2,4,6,8 | Intermediate values |

Main Criteria | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | (1,1,1) | (1,2,3) | (1/5,1/4,1/3) | (1/4,1/3,1/2) | (1,2,3) |

B | (1/3,1/2,1/1) | (1,1,1) | (1/3,1/2,1/1) | (1/4,1/3,1/2) | (1,2,3) |

C | (3,4,5) | (1,2,3) | (1,1,1) | (1,2,3) | (2,3,4) |

D | (2,3,4) | (2,3,4) | (1/3,1/2,1/1) | (1,1,1) | (3,4,5) |

E | (1/3,1/2,1/1) | (1/3,1/2,1/1) | (1/4,1/3,1/2) | (1/5,1/4,1/3) | (1,1,1) |

Main Criteria | A | B | C | D | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | 1 | 2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 2 |

B | 1/2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2 |

C | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |

D | 3 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 4 |

E | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1 |

Main Criteria | A | B | C | D | E | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | 1 | 2 | 1/4 | 1/3 | 2 | 0.14 |

B | 1/2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2 | 0.12 |

C | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.37 |

D | 3 | 3 | 1/2 | 1 | 4 | 0.30 |

E | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1 | 0.08 |

Total | 1 | |||||

CR = 0.06 |

No | Symbol | Weight |
---|---|---|

1 | A1 | 0.07 |

2 | A2 | 0.05 |

3 | A3 | 0.01 |

4 | B1 | 0.08 |

5 | B2 | 0.03 |

6 | B3 | 0.01 |

7 | C1 | 0.28 |

8 | C2 | 0.09 |

9 | D1 | 0.22 |

10 | D2 | 0.06 |

11 | D3 | 0.02 |

12 | E1 | 0.05 |

13 | E2 | 0.00 |

14 | E3 | 0.02 |

15 | E4 | 0.01 |

Supplier | Φ^{+}(i) | Φ^{−}(i) | Φ(i) | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|

S1 | 1.46 | 2.2 | -0.74 | 8 |

S2 | 1.04 | 2.99 | -1.95 | 10 |

S3 | 2.23 | 1.75 | 0.48 | 5 |

S4 | 1.94 | 2.55 | -0.61 | 7 |

S5 | 2.25 | 1.71 | 0.54 | 4 |

S6 | 1.41 | 1.96 | -0.55 | 6 |

S7 | 1.68 | 2.49 | -0.81 | 9 |

S8 | 2.27 | 1.32 | 0.95 | 3 |

S9 | 2.82 | 1.33 | 1.49 | 1 |

S10 | 2.58 | 1.38 | 1.20 | 2 |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Wang, C.-N.; Viet, V.T.H.; Ho, T.P.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T.
Multi-Criteria Decision Model for the Selection of Suppliers in the Textile Industry. *Symmetry* **2020**, *12*, 979.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060979

**AMA Style**

Wang C-N, Viet VTH, Ho TP, Nguyen VT, Nguyen VT.
Multi-Criteria Decision Model for the Selection of Suppliers in the Textile Industry. *Symmetry*. 2020; 12(6):979.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060979

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Wang, Chia-Nan, Van Tran Hoang Viet, Thanh Phong Ho, Van Thanh Nguyen, and Viet Tinh Nguyen.
2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision Model for the Selection of Suppliers in the Textile Industry" *Symmetry* 12, no. 6: 979.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060979