European J. Industrial Engineering, Vol. 5, No.

1, 2011

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to

supplier involvement in product development:
a case study in Turkish automobile industry
Coskun Ozkan*, Gulsen Akman,
Gulsen Aydin Keskin and Fatma Mine Otkur
Engineering Faculty, Industrial Engineering Department,
Umuttepe Campus, Kocaeli University,
41380 Umuttepe-zmit-Kocaeli, Turkey
E-mail: cozkan@kocaeli.edu.tr
E-mail: akmang@kocaeli.edu.tr
E-mail: gaydin@kocaeli.edu.tr
E-mail: fatmaotkur@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: This study proposes a mechanism to evaluate suppliers for
involvement during product development process. The proposed methodology
is discussed within a multinational automobile firm and preliminary analysis
indicates that the approach provides an effective mechanism for selecting
suppliers involved in the product development process.
To remedy to supplier integration problems, a clustering approach fuzzy
adaptive resonance theory (Fuzzy ART) is used. The proposed methodology
is explained using a case study that is realised in an automobile firm.
Eventually, the results are presented comparatively, which obtained by current
supplier evaluation system of the firm and provided from Fuzzy ART
methodology.
[Submitted 14 July 2009; Revised 16 November 2009; Accepted 17 November
2009]
Keywords: supplier involvement; supply chain; fuzzy adaptive resonance
theory; Fuzzy ART; product development; classification.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ozkan, C., Akman, G.,
Keskin, G.A. and Otkur, F.M. (2011) Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory
approach to supplier involvement in product development: a case study in
Turkish automobile industry, European J. Industrial Engineering, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp.4363.
Biographical notes: Coskun Ozkan received his BSc in Mechanical
Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, 1983. He worked as an Associate
Professor, an Assistant Professor and Research Assistant at Department of
Industrial Engineering at Istanbul Technical University between 1983 and
2005. He received his MSc and PhD in Industrial Engineering, at the same
university, in 1985 and 1992 respectively. Since 2005, he is with Industrial
Engineering Department, Kocaeli University Faculty of Engineering as
Professor. His research interests include reliability modelling, quality
assessment and statistical quality control.
Gulsen Akman has been an Assistant Professor at the Department of Industrial
Engineering, Kocaeli University since 2004. She received her BSc in Industrial
Engineering, Yildiz Technical University and her MSc in Industrial
Engineering, Istanbul Technical University. She earned her PhD from
Management at Gebze Institue of Technology. Her research interests span the
Copyright 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

43

44

C. Ozkan et al.
fields of strategic innovation management, innovative capability, new product
development, manufacturing systems, technology management and supplier
involvement in product development process, fuzzy set theory and
multi-criteria decision making.
Gulsen Aydin Keskin has been a Research Assistant at the Department of
Industrial Engineering, Kocaeli University since 2000. She received her BSc,
MSc and PhD in Industrial Engineering, Kocaeli University, in 2000, 2003 and
2008 respectively. Her research interests include production planning and
control, classification algorithms and quality management and techniques in
engineering.
Fatma Otkur received her BSc and MSc at the Department of Industrial
Engineering at Kocaeli University. Her research interests span the fields of
supplier involvement and supply chain management.

Introduction

Over the last decade, the globalisation of markets, rising global competition, shortened
product life cycles, the rapid rate of technological change and the need for the faster
development of products with higher quality and reliability have led to an increased focus
on the product development process (Batchelor, 1997). Later, increasingly, in order to
access product or technological innovations, firms are concentrating on core activities
and outsourcing other functions to external suppliers and tuning to suppliers, researchers
and other partners (McIvor et al., 2006).
In todays competitive environment, suppliers are highly important resource for
customers. Therefore, suppliers have a large and direct impact on the cost, quality,
technology and time-to-market of new products (McIvor et al., 1997). Today, trends are
towards companies to adopt more collaborative relations with their key suppliers.
Therefore, firms give importance to development of their relationships with their supplier
and construction of collaborative relationships with suppliers in product development
(Humpreys et al., 2007).
One of the most critical strategic decisions of the firms is the selection of the right
supplier to be involved in new product development (NPD) process. According to
Wynstra et al. (2003) and Goffin et al. (2006), the partner selection for collaborative NPD
is a crucial topic. However, it is surprising that the pre-selection and the selection of
suppliers for involvement activities in NPD project management area have received only
limited attention in the literature. There is a gap in the area of supplier selection process
in NPD. It is necessary to evaluate supplier for NPD differently from classical supplier
evaluation system of the main firm. From this point of view, this study proposes a model
for selection of supplier in order to involve in NPD.
This article focuses on evaluating current suppliers, in order to determine which
vendors are involved in design decisions and product development process. First, an
overview of the supplier involvement in product development process is described.
Second, an evaluation tool is assisted in operationalisation of determining current
suppliers sufficiency included in NPD process. Third, Fuzzy ART methodology is
proposed. Finally, the case study presents the application of the methodology with Fuzzy
ART algorithm. The case study is carried out in a multinational automobile firm. Forty

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

45

local suppliers of this firm are evaluated according to assessment criteria and then it is
determined, which of them have necessary capabilities to involve product development
process.

Literature review

An increasing body of literature like Clark and Wheelwright (1992), Brown and
Eisenhardt (1995), has identified new product development as a core process for being
successful in the new global economy. Academic researchers in several fields have
produced a large number of studies, proposing an array of different variables deemed
critical to successful new product development. Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) provide a
summary of the key variables critical to successful product development, which include
team composition, team organisation of work and group processes, project leadership and
senior management, product concept effectiveness, marketing issues, supplier and
customer integration (McIvor et al., 2006). As seen, suppliers are one of the most
important factors for successful product development.
Specifically, recent studies in the literature such as Benton and Maloni (2005), Chen
et al. (2004), Petersen et al. (2005), Prahinski and Benton (2004) have examined the role
of the supplier in new product development. Also, Afuah (2000) has showed that greater
supplier involvement benefits the innovation and increases innovation level of the firm.
Besides, supplier involvement provides high financial performance to manufacturers
(Carr and Pearson, 1999).

2.1 Supplier involvement

In an ever-increasing competitive environment, suppliers can contribute to product
development process of main firm in several ways. Supplier involvement in NPD
generally has positive effect on development time, development cost, and product cost
and product quality (McGinnis and Vallopra, 1999; Ragatz et al., 2002). Therefore,
management of supplier involvement is crucial for manufacturers for the success of new
product in market and sustainability of firm performance and survival.
Traditionally, most research on supplier involvement in product development has
been situated in large-scale assembly sectors, like the electronics and automotive sectors
(Valk and Wynstra, 2005). In the supplier relations literature, authors such as Dyer and
Singh (1998), Kaufman et al. (2000), Takeishi (2001) have discussed briefly the
innovation benefits of close connections with suppliers in the product development
process. Close relationships with supplier in product development process have become
common practice in the automobile industry for suppliers to set up their workshop within
the manufacturers requirements and to be involved in the product development project
teams from the design phase (Takeishi, 2001).
There are many examples of suppliers as an input to product development. For
example, Cadillac involved in supplier representatives on 75% of their development
teams. Xerox has included suppliers in partnership since the early 1980s. Boeing
co-locates suppliers in their manufacturing facilities (ONeal, 1993; Humpreys et al.,
2007). Several researchers such as Clark and Fujimoto (1991), Lamming (1994), Twigg
(1998) have investigated the product development process, particularly in the automotive

46

C. Ozkan et al.

industry. More specifically, Twigg (1998) has investigated the design process in the UK
automotive industry and identified supplier involvement during several phases of product
development.
The supplier involvement provides a number of benefits in the product development
process for main firm (McIvor et al., 2006). Cooperating suppliers on product
development projects enhances the information and expertise regarding new ideas and
technology. It allows early identification of potential problems, and leads to improved
quality of the final product, eliminating rework and reducing costs. Then, the supplier
involvement provides firms a possible route for outsourcing that can reduce the internal
complexity of projects. It provides extra resources that can lead to a reduction in the
critical path of the project. It can improve communication and information exchange that
reduces delays and ensures that the project is completed on time. It can improve
buyer-supplier relationships because of that, suppliers internalise project concerns and
subsequently smoother working relationships on future projects. Echtelt and Wynstra
(2001) have summarised potential advantages of supplier involvement in Table 1.
Table 1

Potential advantages for supplier involvement in product development

Nature of advantage
Strategic/ long term

Potential advantages
Effectiveness

Innovation and technology related advantages

Increased efficiency and effectiveness of future
project-collaboration
Better access to technological resources and
knowledge
Long-term alignment of technological strategies
Possibilities to influence future technological
investments

Operational/short term

Efficiency

Time -to market related advantages

Lead-time reduction
Development cost related advantages
Reduced development costs (improved resource
utilisation)
Reduced transaction costs

Efficiency

Product cost related advantages

Provide suggestions on alternative materials
increasing product quality/functionality and
lowering costs
Reduced manufacturing costs
Product quality related advantages
Development of better performing
designs/improved product performance/reduction
quality problems

In the literature, many studies about supplier selection and evaluation with some methods
such as analytic network process (ANP), analytic hierarchy process (AHP), technique for
order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) etc., are existent. However, we
could not find any study or research about supplier selection in NPD. Only

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

47

Huang et al. (2003) have developed a new model of the customer-supplier partnership in
NPD, and then Humpreys et al. (2007) have tested this model on a multinational
telecommunications company and showed that preliminary analysis indicates that the
approach provides an effective mechanism for selecting suppliers involved in the product
development process. Thus, we found a gap in the topic of supplier selection process in
NPD. In order to fill this gap, we investigated the problem to determine which supplier
should be involved in NPD process of the main firm in this study.

2.2 Criteria for selecting suppliers to determine involved supplier in NPD

According to Culley et al. (1999), supplier selection for involvement in NPD is different
from organising a list of approved suppliers by evaluating current suppliers that are
purchased for raw materials etc. Lists of approved suppliers may not contain appropriate
suppliers for involvement in NPD process of the main company. Therefore choosing
suitable suppliers in collaborative design to create synergistic value requires a
professionalisation of the supplier selection and evaluation process. In empirical study of
Petroni and Panciroli (2002) it is highlighted by involving suppliers in NPD process and
choosing suitable suppliers. According to this study suppliers play a critical role that is
beyond the scope of their technological base and competencies, and they design highly
customised parts when off-the-shelf parts are available.
Figure 1

Supplier involvement in NPD: the firms expectations

One of the most critical strategic decisions for firms is the selection of the right supplier
to be involved in NPD. It is surprising that the pre-selection and the selection of suppliers
for involvement to important activities in the supplier interface management and project
management areas have received only limited attention in the literature. Furthermore, we
did not find a focused and detailed analysis of supplier selection criteria in the supplier
involvement context. Firms expectations from suppliers being involved in NPD are

48

C. Ozkan et al.

shown in Figure 1. These expectations are respectively the suppliers competence (with
respect to two dimensions: the suppliers competence in mastering a new or complex
technology, and the suppliers ability to provide an outside point of view), trust and
reliability, openness and mutual support between the buying firm and the supplier, and
goal congruence. These criteria are seen as important for the working relationship during
the NPD project (Wagner and Hoegel, 2006).
According to Birou and Fawcett (1994), technology and expertise of suppliers are
important factors for supplier involvement. McCutcheon et al. (1997) has emphasised
that the suppliers cooperativeness is more influential than their technical competence for
supplier involvement in NPD. Closeness of the buyer-supplier relationship is an
important criteria for effective supplier involvement in NPD, specifically, when the
product development project results are unclear and risky (Liker et al., 1996; Primo and
Amundson, 2002). Factors such as commitment, confidence, and trust have been
identified as critical success factors for supplier involvement success in NPD (Ragatz et
al., 1997).

Adaptive resonance theory

Adaptive resonance theory (ART) was developed by Grossberg in 1976 and was
introduced as a theory of human cognitive information processing (Carpenter et al.,
1991). They are designed to control the degree of similarity of patterns place on the same
cluster unit. This algorithm can automatically find the adaptive clusters based on training
patterns (Liu and Li, 2005).
Figure 2

A block diagram of ART networks

Attentional subsystem
Orienting
subsystem
F2

F1

As seen in Figure 2, a typical ART network consists of two subsystems, the attentional
and the orienting subsystems, which are connected to each other via the weights. The
attentional subsystem consists of two fields defined as F1 and F2. F1 is called as input
layer because input values are applied to it. F2 is called as category representation layer.

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

49

These category representations demonstrate the clusters to which the input values belong.
The orienting subsystem consists of a single node (called the reset node), which accepts
inputs from the F1 layer, the F2 layer, and the input pattern applied across the F1 field.
The output of the reset node affects the nodes of the F2 field. Unlike from the other
neural networks, there are no hidden layers (Krse and Smagt 1996; Georgiopoulos et al.,
1999; Kondadadi and Kozma 2002).
ART adapts to new inputs indefinitely. New categories can exist when the input does
not match any of the stored patterns, but the input cannot change the stored patterns
unless they are adequately similar.
These networks are widely used in clustering and classification problems. A
clustering algorithm takes a set of input vectors as input and gives a set of clusters as
output. Input vectors, which are close according to a specific similarity measure, should
be mapped to the same cluster. Clusters can be labeled to indicate a particular semantic
meaning pertaining to all input vectors mapped to that cluster.
The classical ART clustering algorithms are: ART1 (clusters binary input patterns
and is the basic ART network), ART2 (clusters either analogue or binary input patterns),
ART2A (fast version of ART2), ART3 (based on ART2 but incorporates chemical
transmitters to control the search process in a hierarchical ART structure), adaptive
resonance theory mapping (ARTMAP) (self-organise stable categorical mappings
between m-dimensional input vectors and n-dimensional output vectors), Fuzzy ART
(incorporates computations from fuzzy set theory into ART1. It uses Fuzzy AND
operator instead of the crisp operator), Fuzzy ARTMAP (combination of the ARTMAP
with Fuzzy ART) architecture (Dagher, 2006; Kondadadi and Kozma, 2002; Kim et al.,
2001).

Fuzzy ART

Fuzzy ART is an unsupervised learning algorithm and it is based on ART1, incorporating

fuzzy logic into ART1 neural network. Different from ART1, Fuzzy ART allows both
binary and continuous input patterns (Krishna and Rani, 2004). Carpenter et al introduced
Fuzzy ART neural network in 1991. Fuzzy ART incorporates the basic features of all
ART systems (Carpenter et al., 1991).
Fuzzy ART is the most recent adaptive resonance framework that provides a unified
architecture for both binary and continuous value inputs. This algorithm achieves a
generalisation of learning both analogue and binary input patterns by replacing the
appearance of the logical AND intersection operator () in ART1 by the MIN operator
() of fuzzy set theory (Lee and Fischer, 1999).
Aydin Keskin and zkan (2009) have realised a comprehensive literature review for
Fuzzy ART neural network until the first half of 2007. The researches and applications in
recent years are: Kim and Kim (2008) used Fuzzy ART algorithm at passport recognition
and face verification. Hsieh and Yang (2008) have integrated the primary component
analysis and Fuzzy ART algorithm into constructing an incorporated approach. zdemir
et al. (2007) have applied modified Fuzzy ART to cell design. Akhbardeh et al. (2007)
have presented a comparative analysis of novel supervised Fuzzy ART, multilayer
perception and competitive neural trees networks to three pattern recognition problems.

50

C. Ozkan et al.

Fuzzy ART algorithm for supplier involvement

In this paper, Fuzzy ART algorithm was applied to supplier involvement process. The
main characteristic of the methodology is its adaptation ability. By vigilance parameter,
the algorithm determines the membership of each input to the appropriate class. Fuzzy
ART algorithm classifies the suppliers, according to their similarities by the aid of the
vigilance parameter. The algorithm on its own determines the number and boundaries of
resulting supplier classes and class memberships of the suppliers. The used Fuzzy ART
model for supplier involvement is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3

Fuzzy ART model for supplier involvement

C1

C2

C3

Cs

Layer 2

wi,j,s

Layer 1

x1,1

x1,2

xi,j

xi,j

is the input of the model: rating of the jth criteria for the ith supplier

Cs

represents the supplier class

wi,j,s represents the weights between Layer 1 and Layer 2. It also determines the
membership of each input at Layer 1 to the classes at Layer 2.
Systematically explanation of the Fuzzy ART supplier involvement methodology that
modelled by Figure 3 is as follows:
Step 1

Normalisation of input values: each input value I(i,j) is normalised by

equation (1).
NI i , j =

I (i, j ) min( j )
max( j ) min( j )

(1)

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

51

i :1 n

Here, n represents maximum number of suppliers.

J
represents the criterion number as shown in Table 2 (these criteria were
adapted from the literature).
NIi,j, represents the normalised input value.
Table 2
j

The supplier evaluation criteria in NPD

Criteria explanation

Sharing level of marketing knowledge

Sharing level of process cost knowledge

Sharing level of process capacity knowledge

From
Petersen et al.
(2003), McIvor
and Humpreys
(2004)

Share level of technical offers

Developments in innovation level by involving in customer NPD

process

Developments in product quality by involving in customer NPD

process

Developments in financial performance by involving in customer

NPD process

Technical capacity of supplier

Chung and Kim

(2003), Song and
Benedetto (2007)

Appropriateness of production process

10

Product quality of the supplier

Song and
Benedetto (2007)

Chung and Kim

(2003)

11

Financial power of the supplier

12

Supply capacity of the supplier

13

Better production system condition of supplier due to be involved in

customers NPD process

14

Using of resources at the highest level sources to produce product

appropriate to customer manufacturing capacity and provide all
possible supply

15

Combining of tools and equipments with high characteristic to meet

the product requirements of the customer

16

Extraordinary technological standards for producing customers

product, needed high degree adaptation are available

17

The complexity degree of the technology used at new

product/process/service development project with the customer

Unique to study

18

Uncertainty or innovation degree of the technology used at new

product/process/service development project

Petersen et al.
(2003)

19

Congruity degree against predictable/definiteness of the

service/process/product technology at the working area for
integration with the customer

20

General satisfaction level according to results of cooperated projects

21

The level of reaching goals determined before the project

52
Table 2
j

C. Ozkan et al.
The supplier evaluation criteria in NPD (continued)
Criteria explanation

From

22

The working frequency at project developments of customer

23

The working frequency at NPD of customer

24

The working frequency at process development with customer

25

The similarity between the working area before the project and the
current working area after the cooperation with the customer

Unique to study

26

Your customer thinks that you are professional at your collaboration

process

27

Your customer trusts you at your collaboration process

Walter (2003),
Song and
Benedetto (2007)

28

The cooperation with your customer is under long term agreement

29

You allocate all your sources and man power to provide customers
expectations

30

For your product, your customer does not aim to work with another
supplier except you

31

You are the most important supplier for your customer

32

Adoption level of your expectations and demands as a supplier from

your customer

33

Flexibility in participation methodology to project with your

customer (full/part time)

34

Participation level at your supplier integration

35

Your suppliers participation level in Integration with your customer

36

Your communication level with your customer mutually

37

What is the customer culture compatibility level?

38

What is your previous and existent relationship level with your

customer?

39

Your quick response level against emergency states, problems and

special demands

40

What is your flexibility level to provide solutions to unexpected

demand changes?

41

Your sharing level of product development know-how

42

Response to demands (request) of changing products and services

against changing needs

43

What is your capacity level for unexpected demands?

44

What is your participation wishes level at value analysis and NPD?

45

Our aim is to show additional endeavor to our customers product

development process over expected

46

We are planning to allocate much time to support our customers

product development process

47

We are planning to support our customer at the take over process of

new product with our engineers

48

We are planning to participate to the process of our customers new

product development at expected level

Petersen et al.
(2003), McIvor
and Humpreys
(2004)

Unique to study

Fliess and Becker

(2005), Petersen
et al. (2003),
Wagner and
Hoegl (2005),
Akman and Yayla
(2005)
Kannan and Tan
(2003)

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

53

Step 2

Determining the parameters of algorithm: three parameter values [choice (),

vigilance () and learning ratio ()] are assigned. For any Fuzzy ART problem:
vigilance threshold () is responsible for the number of classes (0 < < 1).
Choice parameter is effective in class selection (0 < 1). Learning rate
controls the velocity of the network adaptation (0 < 1). User defines choice
(), vigilance (), and learning ratio () parameters and parameter selection is
specific to the problem type.

Step 3

Determining the initial weights: initially all weights are taken 1 and the number
of the class is set as 1 (s = 1).
For all i, jwi,j,s(0) = 1

Step 4

Introduction of input values to network: input vector (x) which normalised in the
range (0, 1] is designated to network.

Step 5

Computation of choice function value: choice function Ti,s is defined with the
following equation.
n

( NI
Ti , s ( NI ) =

i, j

wi , j , s )

j =1

(2)

i, j ,s

j =1

where, is fuzzy AND operator and (x y) = min (x, y).

Step 6

Selection of maximum choice function value (T*): the highest one of the choice
function values is selected.

T * = max {Ti , s : s = 1, 2, , m}
Step 7

(3)

Matching test: matching test determines the appropriate class for the input.
Matching function is computed with equation (4).
n

M i , s (T ) =

( NI

i, j

wi , j , s )

j =1

(4)

NI

i, j

j =1

If Mi,s < then Ti,s is passing the test. So the ith supplier is added to existing
class Cs and go to Step 11.
If Mi,s < then Ti,s is not passing the test then go to Step 10.
Step 8

Resetting: set the choice function value as Ti,s = 1 and go back to Step 8.
Control the next highest Ti,s value. In this way, matching test continues for all of
the Ti,s values.

54

C. Ozkan et al.
If none of Ti,s pass the test a new class is created for existing input. So the ith
supplier is added to the new class Cs+1. Go to Step 6 and continue with the next
input.

Step 9

Updating weights: according to equation (5) input weights of the existing input
is updated.
)
( old )
( old )
wi(,new
j , s = ( NI i , j wi , j , s ) + (1 ) wi , j , s

(5)

Step 10 Repeat: the algorithm continues with the next input at Step 6. Stop if all data is
allocated to s different classes.
Step 11 Labelling of classes: obtained supplier classes should be prioritised. Arithmetic
mean of the input values in each class is used as prioritisation measure. Classes
are ranked by their priority and then labelled.
MATLAB 7.0.4 is used to implement Fuzzy ART supplier involvement methodology that
mentioned above.
In following section, we introduce a case study and explain the Fuzzy ART
algorithms application by using this problem.

Research methodology: case study analysis

6.1 Turkish automobile sector

Turkish automobile industry is a driving sector for Turkish economy in many aspects.
Automobile sector has 50 years of history in Turkey. Manufacturing started with only
assembly in the middle of 1950s. After customs union, through increased investments,
sector has become a part of the global market and expanded to global market in which all
international brands compete. Specifically in 1990s, after multinational firms entered the
sector, its importance in Turkey increased because it started to play a leading role at
technology transfer. Turkish automobile sector is one of the first three largest industries
in Turkey. Automobile industry was constructed on import substitution models at the
beginning. Currently it exports products to world markets with international quality
standard. Turkey is one of the worlds manufacturing zones of multinational automobile
manufacturers. In the direction of development process of automobile industry, there is a
continuous improvement in Turkish market because of changing market and competition
conditions.

6.2 Overview of the case organisation

The research project began through discussions with an automobile firm with foreign
capital that had been implementing supplier involvement in NPD. The company is
performing in automobile sector in Kocaeli region of Turkey. Its production capacity is
125.000 units per year. This firm is one of the most trusted and favourite firms in Turkey
with its customer oriented services and high quality products. In addition, research and
development (R&D) activities are very important for the firm, which allocates 10% of its
sales revenues. The firm emphasises, that customer, technology, quality and human are

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

55

important and primary factors, and intends being located in top ranks of world
automobile industry and protects its superiority in R&D and technological development.
The firm is involved their suppliers in its product development process. Its suppliers
are divided into two groups, local and international suppliers. In this study, we
investigated local suppliers of the firm. The firm works with 40 local suppliers
performing in Turkey. Some characteristics of these suppliers are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Some characteristics of the local suppliers of the firm

Age of the firm

Frequency

Employee number

Frequency

Working duration
with main firm

Frequency

05 years

050

01 years

610 years

51100

24 year

10

1115 years

101200

10

56 years

1625 years

201500

78 years

10

2635 years

501750

910 years

3545 years

751 and upper

11 and upper

46 and upper

Total

40

40

40

At the firm, a classical supplier evaluation system, which appraises the existing
performances of the vendors, is applied. Using this system suppliers are evaluated in 4
main criteria groups: product quality, supplier audit, quality management system, and
process and supplier reliability. The subtotal point of each category is shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Criteria of the existing evaluating system

Evaluation criteria

Max. point

Product quality

20

Supplier audit

20

Quality management system

10

Process and supplier reliability

50

Total

100

Table 5
Total point
Over 85
7685

Main firms supplier rating model

Class

Explanation

5 star

Supplier firm at international level

4.5 star

Supplier firm at fine level

7175

4 star

6670

3.5 star

6165

3 star

5660

2.5 star

5155

2 star

4650

1.5 star

Under 45

1 star

Supplier firm at acceptable level

Supplier firm that needs minor improvements
Supplier firm that needs major improvements

56

C. Ozkan et al.

A committee in the main firm determines the rates of suppliers for each category.
Supplier total point is calculated by summing of point of four categories. All suppliers are
evaluated and given a star grade according to total supplier point (Table 5).
In this study in order to evaluate supplier involvement in NPD, a questionnaire was
developed. The questionnaire contains 48 criteria (Table 2) which are selected from the
literature for supplier evaluation in NPD. This questionnaire was sent to 40 local
suppliers. The supplier evaluated itself using the five-point Likert scale as shown in
Table 6, according to its involvement level and involvement capabilities.
Table 6

Five-point Likert scale

Point

Statue

Certainly disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Certainly agree

The resulted points of the evaluation process for each supplier and criteria are shown in
Table 7.
Table 7
Criteria

Forty suppliers and their degrees according to 48 criteria

Supplier
Sp1

Sp2

Sp3

Sp4

Sp5

Sp36 Sp37 Sp38 Sp39 Sp40

Cr1

Cr2

Cr3

Cr4

Cr5

Cr45

Cr46

Cr47

Cr48

Data provided from questionnaire was evaluated through Fuzzy ART algorithm, in order
to determine which suppliers should be involved in new product development process.
The parameters necessary for the algorithm were assigned as: choice = 1.0, vigilance
= 0.5 and learning ratio = 0.8.
The above-described Fuzzy ART supplier involvement algorithm is executed using
the data given in Table 7. Algorithm clustered 40 suppliers into five supplier classes
according to the vigilance parameter. Table 8 shows the generated classes, their labels,
priority measures and the class membership of the suppliers.
The Fuzzy ART method classified the most adequate suppliers S2, S6, S17, S24, S25,
S26, S27, S29, S37 and S39 in the first class. The first class that takes the highest priority
measure (4.28) is labelled as completely adequate. This class involves the high

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

57

performance suppliers according to Fuzzy ART. The company can choose any supplier/s
from this class to build long-term relationship.
Table 8

The classification of the suppliers by Fuzzy ART algorithm

Class label

Class member

Completely adequate

Priority measure: 4.28

Suppliers

S2, S6, S17, S24, S25, S26, S27, S29, S37, S39

Adequate but development required

Suppliers

Priority measure: 4.07

S3, S4, S7, S11, S14, S16, S18, S21, S28, S30, S36,
S38, S40

Moderate

Priority measure: 3.84

Suppliers

S1, S5, S15, S20, S32, S34

Inadequate

Priority measure: 3.69

Suppliers

S12, S13, S19, S22, S23, S33, S35

Completely inadequate

Priority measure: 3.60

Suppliers

S8, S9, S10, S31

S3, S4, S7, S11, S14, S16, S18, S21, S28, S30, S36, S38 and S40 numbered suppliers
belong to the class of adequate but development required. These are appropriate
vendors but need some development to get in the first class.
The method groups the firms S1, S5, S15, S20, S32 and S34 into the class of
moderate. Less adequate vendors are in this class. They are tradable but with more
attention.
S12, S13, S19, S22, S23, S33 and S35 suppliers belong to the class of inadequate.
The main firm not prefers to work with these suppliers.
S8, S9, S10 and S31 suppliers belong to the class of completely inadequate. This
class with the smallest priority value (3.60) covers the most inappropriate vendors within
40 suppliers.
The 40 suppliers aligning according to current supplier evaluation system of the firm
and, Fuzzy ART methods results are shown comparatively in Table 9.
Table 9

Comparison of the results of firms current supplier evaluation system and results of
Fuzzy ART supplier involvement method

Current supplier evaluation system results

Supplier

Fuzzy ART results

Total point

Star level

Class number

Supplier 27

86.13

5 STAR

Supplier 11

82.32

4.5 STAR

Supplier 26

82.07

4.5 STAR

Supplier 21

81.94

4.5 STAR

Supplier 40

81.30

4.5 STAR

Supplier 20

80.76

4.5 STAR

Supplier 32

80.70

4.5 STAR

Supplier 24

80.22

4.5 STAR

58

C. Ozkan et al.

Table 9

Comparison of the results of firms current supplier evaluation system and results of
Fuzzy ART supplier involvement method (continued)

Current supplier evaluation system results

Supplier

Fuzzy ART results

Total point

Star level

Class number

Supplier 39

79.71

4.5 STAR

Supplier 28

79.69

4.5 STAR

Supplier 7

79.16

4.5 STAR

Supplier 25

79.00

4.5 STAR

Supplier 38

78.45

4.5 STAR

Supplier 16

76.44

4.5 STAR

Supplier 35

75.17

4.5 STAR

Supplier 29

74.93

4 STAR

Supplier 17

74.61

4 STAR

Supplier 2

74.45

4 STAR

Supplier 19

73.62

4 STAR

Supplier 13

72.62

4 STAR

Supplier 12

72.44

4 STAR

Supplier 15

71.06

4 STAR

Supplier 4

70.67

4 STAR

Supplier 6

69.96

3.5 STAR

Supplier 3

69.54

3.5 STAR

Supplier 5

68.76

3.5 STAR

Supplier 36

68.45

3.5 STAR

Supplier 37

67.75

3.5 STAR

Supplier 34

67.55

3.5 STAR

Supplier 30

67.28

3.5 STAR

Supplier 18

67.25

3.5 STAR

Supplier 9

65.45

3.5 STAR

Supplier 1

64.78

3 STAR

Supplier 31

64.48

3 STAR

Supplier 23

64.33

3 STAR

Supplier 22

64.14

3 STAR

Supplier 33

62.30

3 STAR

Supplier 8

60.54

3 STAR

Supplier 10

58.02

2.5 STAR

Supplier 14

55.56

2.5 STAR

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

59

Discussions and conclusions

Some studies in the literature such as Bidault et al. (1998), Handfield et al. (1999),
Wynstra and Van Echtelt (2001) have addressed the issues of how to manage early
supplier involvement. Little amount of researches (such as Fraser et al., 2003) are
focused on the collaborative level and the competency of customers project team in
charge of the formation and the management of the relation with the suppliers involved in
NPD process. Bidault et al. (1998), Handfield et al. (1999), Wynstra and Van Echtelt
(2001), Fraser et al. (2003), and Lamming et al. (1996) have considered that when
customer and supplier work together in a collaborative way in NPD, the sole evaluation
of the supplier is not enough. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate supplier differently
from classical supplier evaluation system of the firm. In this study, we proposed a model
for selection of suppliers in order to involve in NPD.
One of the most critical strategic decisions for firms is the selection of the right
supplier to be involved in NPD. It is surprising that the pre-selection and the selection of
suppliers for involvement activities in NPD project management area have received only
limited attention in the literature. For example, Humpreys et al. (2007) have proposed a
mechanism for evaluating supplier involvement during product development within a
multinational telecommunications company and their approaches have provided an
effective mechanism for selecting suppliers involved in the product development process.
They have used four indices to measure supplier involvement in the design process:
satisfaction index, flexibility index, risk index, and confidence index. Furthermore, we
did not find a focused and more elaborate analysis of supplier selection criteria in the
supplier involvement context. There is a gap about determining of which suppliers could
be involved in NPD projects. The aim of this study is to explore the determination of the
right suppliers, which can be involved in NPD process. The represented results show that
this algorithm is a suitable tool in order to treat this problem.
In supplier selection or evaluation problems, suppliers are evaluated according to
their performance levels in performance criteria such as cost, quality, flexibility and
delivery. However, in supplier involvement in NPD problem, suppliers should evaluated
according to the appropriateness of their design facilities. In this problem, evaluation
criteria are different from supplier selection problems. These criteria can be technical
ability, design ability, cooperativeness, teamwork ability etc.
In addition, results of supplier evaluation and results of supplier involvement can be
different. A supplier can be appropriate for purchasing raw materials and supplies, but the
same firm cannot be appropriate for involvement in NPD. For example, as seen in
Table 9, Supplier 11 is determined as the second best performer, because it meets all
requirements of the main firm, and it is graded with 4.5 STAR. However, it is in the
second class according to Fuzzy ART algorithm. Supplier 2 is at 18th rank and graded
with 4 STAR by current evaluation system. It is qualified as adequate for product
development process by Fuzzy ART algorithm.
This study classified the 40 suppliers through Fuzzy ART algorithm. The
conventional methods, such as AHP, TOPSIS and ranking serve to rank the suppliers and
select the most appropriate ones. Fuzzy ART method not only selects the most
appropriate supplier but also clusters all of the vendors through the vigilance parameter.
Fuzzy ART method forms cluster boundaries and the number of the clusters

60

C. Ozkan et al.

mathematically according to matching process. This is one of the advantages of the

proposed method.
Contrary to conventional evaluation methods, the proposed Fuzzy ART supplier
involvement algorithm considers all evaluation criteria separately. This contribution of
the algorithm is very important.
In practice, through a computer program, each firm of each sector can use the
proposed method easily and can determine the right supplier/s for NPD process. The
algorithm is very effective to deal with clustering problems. Examples of the problem
fields that the algorithm was already applied are production failures, part-machine
grouping, manufacturing quality monitoring, electric load forecasting and fuzzy
clustering in the input/output spaces, image segmentation and pattern classification.
Owing to its clustering ability, in future studies, the Fuzzy ART algorithm can be used to
solve other classification problems too.

References
Afuah, A.N. (2000) How much do your co-opetitors capabilities matter in the face of a
technological change?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp.387404.
Akhbardeh, A., Nikhil, Koskinen, P.E. and Yli-Harja, O. (2008) Towards the experimental
evaluation of novel supervised fuzzy adaptive resonance theory for pattern classification,
Pattern Recognition Letters, Vol. 29, pp.10821093.
Akman, G. and Yayla, Y. (2005) Supplier involvement in product development teams and their
selection by using AHP, Proceedings of 3rd International Logistics & Supply Chain
Congress, Istanbul, November, pp.5764.
Aydn Keskin, G. and zkan, C. (2009) A new evaluation method for FMEA: Fuzzy ART
algorithm, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.647661.
Batchelor, C. (1997) Moves in the right direction, Financial Times: Survey Logistics 97, 7th
October, p.1.
Benton, W.C. and Maloni, M. (2005) The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships on
supply chain satisfaction, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.122.
Bidault, F., Despres, C. and Butler, C. (1998) Leveraged Innovation: Unlocking the Innovation
Potential of Strategic Supply, MacMillan Press, London.
Birou, L.M. and Fawcett, S.E. (1994) Supplier involvement in integrated product development a
comparison of US and European practices, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.414.
Brown, S. and Eisenhardt, K. (1995) Product development: past research, present findings and
future directions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.343378.
Carpenter, G.A., Grossberg, S. and Rosen, D.B. (1991) Fuzzy ART fast stable learning and
categorization of analog patterns by an adaptive resonance system, Neural Networks, Vol.4,
pp.759771.
Carr, A.S. and Pearson, J.N. (1999) Strategically managed buyer-supplier relationships and
performance outcomes, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp.497519.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A.A. (2004) Strategic purchasing, supply management and firm
performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.505523.
Chung, S. and Kim, G. (2003) Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and
suppliers for new product development: the suppliers standpoint, Research Policy, Vol. 32,
pp.587603.
Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1992) Organizing and leading heavyweight development
teams, California Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.928.

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

61

Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T. (1991) Product Development Performance, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Culley, S., Boston, O. and McMahon, C. (1999) Suppliers in new product development: their
information and integration, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.5975.
Dagher, I. (2006) ART networks with geometrical distances, Journal of Discrete Algorithms,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.538553.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23,
pp.660679.
Echtelt, F. and Wynstra, F. (2001) Managing supplier integration into product development: a
literature review and conceptual model, Conference on the Future of Innovation Studies,
ECIS, September, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Nederland.
Fliess, S. and Becker, U. (2006) Supplier integration-controlling of co-development process,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, pp.2844.
Fraser, P., Farrukh, C. and Gregory, M. (2003) Managing product development collaborations: a
process maturity approach, Proc. Institution Mechanical Engineers: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, Vol. 217 (B), pp.14991519.
Georgiopoulos, M., Dagher, I., Heileman, G.L. and Bebis, G. (1999) Properties of learning of a
Fuzzy ART variant, Neural Networks, Vol. 12, pp.837850.
Goffin, K., Lemke, F. and Szwejczewski, M. (2006) An exploratory study of close
supplier-manufacturer relationships, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, No. 2,
pp.189209.
Grossberg, S. (1976) Adaptive pattern classification and universal recoding, II: feedback,
expectation, olfaction, and illusions, Biological Cybernetics, Vol. 23, pp.187202.
Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.L. and Moncska, R.M. (1999) Involving suppliers in
new product development, California Management Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.5982.
Hsieh, K.L. and Yang, I.C. (2008) Incorporating PCA and Fuzzy ART techniques into achieve
organism classification based on codon usage consideration, Computers in Biology and
Medicine, Vol. 38, pp.886893.
Huang, G.Q., Mak, K.L. and Humphreys, P.K. (2003) A new model of the customer-supplier
partnership in new product development, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Vol. 138, pp.301305.
Humpreys, P., Huang, G., Cadden, T. and McIvor, R. (2007) Integrating design metrics within the
early supplier selection process, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 13,
pp.4252.
Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2003) Attitudes of US and European managers to supplier selection and
assessment and implications for business performance, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 10, pp.472489.
Kaufman, A., Wood, C.H. and Theyll, G. (2000) Collaboration and technology linkages: a
strategic supplier typology, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp.64963.
Kim, K.B. and Kim, S. (2008) A passport recognition and face verification using enhanced Fuzzy
ART based RBF network and PCA algorithm, Neurocomputing, Vol. 71, pp.32023210.
Kim, M.H., Jang, D.S. and Yang, Y.K. (2001) A robust-invariant pattern recognition model using
Fuzzy ART, Pattern Recognition, Vol. 34, pp.16851696.
Kondadadi, R. and Kozma, R. (2002) A modified Fuzzy ART for soft document clustering
Proceedings of the 2002 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IEEE,
pp.25452549.
Krishna, P.R. and Rani, J.S. (2004) Analyzing mining patterns using Fuzzy ART and soft
regression, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.931944.
Krse, B. and Van Der Smagt, P. (1996) An Introduction to Neural Networks, University of
Amsterdam, Eight Editions.

62

C. Ozkan et al.

Lamming, R. (1994) A Review of the Relationship Between Vehicle Manufacturers and Suppliers,
DTI/SMMT, London.
Lamming, R.C., Cousins, P.D. and Notman, D.M. (1996) Beyond vendor assessment, European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.173181.
Lee, Y.S. and Fischer, G.W. (1999) Grouping parts based on geometrical shapes
and manufacturing attributes using a neural network Journal Of Intelligent Manufacturing,
Vol. 10, pp.199209.
Liker, J.K., Kamath, R.R., Wasti, S.N. and Nagamachi, M. (1996) Supplier involvement in
automotive component design: are there really large US Japan differences? Research Policy,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.5989.
Liu, T. and Li, R. (2005) A new ART-counter propagation neural network for solving a
forecasting problem, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28, pp.2127.
McCutcheon, D.M., Grant, R.A. and Hartley, J.L. (1997) Determinants of new product designers
satisfaction with suppliers contributions, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 14, Nos. 34, pp.273290.
McGinnis, M.A. and Vallopra, R. (1999) Purchasing and supplier involvement: issues and insights
regarding new products success, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35, No. 3,
pp.415.
McIvor, R., Humphreys, P. and Cadden, T. (2006) Supplier involvement in product development
in the electronics industry: a case study, Journal of Engineering Technology Management,
Vol. 23, pp.374397.
McIvor, R. and Humphreys, P. (2004) Early supplier involvement in the design process: lessons
from the electronics industry, Omega, Vol. 32, pp.179199.
McIvor, R., Humphreys, P. and McAleer, W. (1997) The implications of the trend towards
partnership sourcing on buyer-supplier relations, Journal of General Management, Vol. 23,
No. 1, pp.5370.
ONeal, C. (1993) Concurrent engineering with early supplier involvement: a cross-functional
challenge, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp.39.
zdemir, R.G., Genylmaz, G. and Aktin, T. (2007) The modified Fuzzy ART and a two stage
clustering approach to cell design, Information Sciences, Vol. 177, pp.52195236.
Petersen, K., Handfield, R. and Ragatz, G. (2003) A model of supplier integration into new
product development, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20, pp.284299.
Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (2005) Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 23, Nos. 34, pp.371388.
Petroni, A. and Panciroli, B. (2002) Innovation as a determinant of suppliers roles and
performances: an empirical study in the food machinery industry, European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 8, pp.135149.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W.C. (2004) Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve
supplier performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.3962.
Primo, M.A.M. and Amundson, S.D. (2002) An exploratory study of the effects of supplier
relationships on new product development outcomes, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.3352.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Petersen, K.J. (2002) Benefits associated with supplier
integration into product development under conditions of technology uncertainty, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp.389400.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Scannell, T.V. (1997) Success factors for integrating suppliers
into new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.190202.
Song, M. and Benedetto, C. (2007) Suppliers involvement and success of radical new product
development in new ventures, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 10, pp.122.

Fuzzy adaptive resonance theory approach to supplier involvement

63

Suresh, N.C. and Kaparthi, S. (1994) Performance of Fuzzy ART Neural network for
group technology cell-formation, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 32,
pp.16931713.
Takeishi, A. (2001) Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier
involvement in automobile product development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22,
pp.403433.
Twigg, D. (1998) Managing product development within a design chain, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.508524.
Valk, W. and Wynstra, F. (2005) Supplier involvement in new product development in the food
industry, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, pp.681694.
Wagner, S.M. and Hoegl, M. (2006) Involving suppliers in product development: insights
from R&D directors and project managers, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35,
pp.936943.
Walter, A. (2003) Relationship-specific factors influencing supplier involvement in customer new
product development, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp.721733.
Wynstra, F. and Van Echtelt, F. (2001) Managing supplier integration into product development: a
literature review and conceptual model, The 17th Industrial Marketing Purchasing
Conference.
Wynstra, F., Weggemann, M. and Van Weele, A.J. (2003) Exploring purchasing integration in
product development, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.6983.