Tugas Dasmenfar (B) Erika Christy M.

2443017042

1. Kriteria Penilaian Vendor / Pemasok untuk bahan awal (Bahan Baku + Kemasan)
• Harga
Kriteria biaya material yang dipasok oleh pemasok merupakan kriteria finansial
yang menjadi pertimbangan utama setiap pabrik dalam memilih pemasok.
Termasuk dalam kriteria ini antara lain harga produk, syarat pembayaran dan biaya
pengiriman.

• Kualitas
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi kualitas terhadap produk yang dihasilkan oleh
supplier. Bahan baku (raw materials) merupakan salah satu input bagi perusahaan
manufaktur (pabrik) yang mutlak dibutuhkan. Bagi sebuah pabrik yang tidak
membuat sendiri bahan bakunya dalam artian bahan baku diperoleh dari pihak
ketiga (supplier), maka kualitas material dari supplier harus menjadi pengawasan
yang utama demi menghasilkan produk yang bermutu. Termasuk dalam kriteria ini
antara lain kualitas produk, kemasan dan label produk, sertifikasi sistem
manajeman kualitas (ISO 9001), penelitian dan pengembangan serta inovasi.

• Pelayanan
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi pelayanannya terhadap customer.

• Pengiriman
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi pelayanan pengiriman bahan baku. Waktu
yang diperlukan untuk bahan dapat dipasok. Termasuk dalam kriteria ini antara
lain lokasi geografis pemasok dan ketepatan waktu dalam pengiriman.

• Fleksibilitas
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi kemampuan supplier memenuhi permintaan
terhadap perubahan jumlah dan waktu.

• Responsifitas
Kriteria ini memilai supplier dari segi kemampuan supplier dalam merespon
problem maupun permintaan.
 Tugas Dasmenfar (B) Erika Christy M.
2443017042

• Profil pemasok
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi status finansial, manajemen dan organisasi
pemasok, kemampuan teknikal, fasilitas, kapasitas, dokumen pelaporan terdahulu,
sertifikat GMP, sertifikasi sistemn manajemen lingkungan (ISO 14001).

• Kapabilitas personel
Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari keterampilan tenaga kerja secara keseluruhan dan
pengalaman dari tenaga kerja.
Source : (Forghani et al., 2018; Mauidzoh and Zabidi, 2017)

Berdasarkan BPOM RI (2013), pemasok bahan awal harus mempunyai sertifikat GMP dari
otoritas negara dan memenuhi minimal 2 kriteria berikut :
• Dapat memastikan dan diketahui pabrik pembuatnya (bukan distributor atau broker) dan
ada jaminan dari distributor atau broker yang menyatakan bahwa bahan awal dan CoA
berasal dari pabrik pembuat tersebut.
• Pabrik pembuat sudah diaudit secara rutin oleh industri pengguna atau organisasi
professional dalam bidang mutu dan memenuhi syarat GMP.
• Untuk Eropa, juga certificate of suitability untuk bahan awal terkait yang
diterbitkan oleh badan otoritas negara terkait dari pabrik pembuat,
namun minimal 1 kali setahun hendaklah dilakukan uji lengkap.

2.a. Contoh label untuk penerimaan bahan awal

PT. WIDYA MANDALA

KARANTINA
Nama Bahan :

Kode Bahan :

No. Penerimaan :

Tanggal Terima :

No. Wadah : dari :

Berat Total
Penerimaan :
 Tugas Dasmenfar (B) Erika Christy M.
2443017042

PT. WIDYA MANDALA

BAGIAN PEMASTIAN MUTU / BAGIAN PENGAWASAN MUTU

DILULUSKAN
Nama Bahan / Produk*) :

No. Bets :

Tanggal Daluwarsa :

Tanggal Uji Ulang Bahan :

Tanggal Diluluskan :

Petugas yang Berwenang :

*)coret yang tidak perlu

PT. WIDYA MANDALA

BAGIAN PEMASTIAN MUTU / BAGIAN PENGAWASAN MUTU

DITOLAK
Nama Bahan / Produk*) :

No. Bets :

Tanggal Penolakan :

Petugas yang Berwenang :

*)coret yang tidak perlu

2.b. Poin-poin yang harus diperiksa saat bahan awal datang

Berdasarkan CPOB (BPOM RI, 2018) :
• Seleksi, kualifikasi, persetujuan dan pemeliharaan pemasok bahan awal, beserta
pembelian dan penerimaannya, didokumentasikan sebagai bagian dari sistem mutu
industri farmasi. Tingkat pengawasan hendaklah proporsional dengan risiko yang
ditimbulkan oleh masingmasing bahan, dengan mempertimbangkan sumbernya,
proses pembuatan, kompleksitas rantai pasokan, dan penggunaan akhir di mana
bahan tersebut digunakan dalam produk obat. Personel yang terlibat dalam
kegiatan ini hendaklah memiliki pengetahuan terkini tentang pemasok, rantai
pasokan, dan risiko yang terkait. Jika memungkinkan, bahan awal hendaklah dibeli
langsung dari pabrik pembuat.
• Persyaratan mutu bahan awal yang ditetapkan oleh pabrik pembuat hendaklah
didiskusikan dan disepakati bersama pemasok. Aspek produksi, pengujian dan
 Tugas Dasmenfar (B) Erika Christy M.
2443017042

pengawasan yang tepat, termasuk persyaratan penanganan, pelabelan, persyaratan

pengemasan dan distribusi, serta prosedur keluhan, penarikan dan penolakan
hendaklah didokumentasikan dalam perjanjian mutu atau spesifikasi yang resmi.
• Semua penerimaan, pengeluaran dan jumlah bahan tersisa hendaklah dicatat.
Catatan hendaklah berisi keterangan mengenai pasokan, nomor bets/lot, tanggal
penerimaan atau penyerahan, tanggal pelulusan dan tanggal kedaluwarsa bila ada.

3. Cara menentukan minimal stock di gudang jadi dan gudang bahan awal
Perhitungan minimum SS (safety stock)diperlukan untuk menghindari stok berlebihan
atau kehabisan barang. Formula yang dapat digunakan untuk menghitung safety stock
adalah sebagai berikut (Management Sciences for Health, 2012) :
SS = LT x CA
Stok minimum = (LT x CA) + SS
Keterangan :
LT : Lead Time
CA : Consumption Average

4. Cara mengontrol suhu di Gudang (CDOB BPOM RI, 2015)

• Penyimpanan barang-barang, terutama barang Pharma dan MDD, harus memenuhi
ketentuan yang sudah ditetapkan oleh Principal untuk menghindari kerusakan yang
diakibatkan oleh suhu dan cahaya matahari.
• Tempat penyimpanan harus dilengkapi dengan peralatan : pengukur suhu, pencatat
suhu atau alat lain yang bisa mengidentifikasi suhu ruangan untuk kurun waktu
tertentu.
• Suhu ruangan harus diperiksa dan dimonitor secara berkala untuk tetap menjaga agar
semua bagian di area penyimpanan tetap dalam suhu yang ditentukan. Pengontrolan
suhu dilakukan 3 kali dalam sehari.
• Agar suhu ruangan dapat dimonitor terus menerus, maka setiap kali dilakukan
pengontrolan harus dicata pada Kartu Monitor Suhu dan disimpan minimal 5 tahun
(shelf-life) + 1 tahun.
• Kagud / Pimpinan memeriksa Kartu Monitor Suhu 1 x dalam sebulan.
• Untuk menjamin akurasi penunjukan suhu ruangan, alat pengukur suhu
(Thermometer) harus dikalibrasi secara berkala, minimal 1 tahun sekali.
• Jika terjadi penyimpangan suhu dalam masa penyimpanan di gudang, maka masih
dapat ditoleransi maksimal sampai 2 jam (ambient room dan AC room). Apabila
sudah melebihi 2 jam dilakukan tindakan agar suhu kembali normal, khusus untuk
cold chain harus segera dilaporkan jikka temperature mengalami perubahan.
 Tugas Dasmenfar (B) Erika Christy M.
2443017042

• Apabila terjadi penyimpangan suhu diluar standar penyimpanan harus dibuatkan

Berita Acara Penyimpangan Temperatur, segera dilakukan perbaikan dan dilaporkan
kepada Kepala Gudang, QA.
• Lakukan pergantian lokasi/titik penempatan termometer minimal 1 kali dalam
setahun.
• Seluruh proses pemetaan dan pengawasan suhu harus terdokumentasi dengan rapi dan
urut sehingga memudahkan penelusuran kembali.
• Penggunaan Temperature Data Logger harus disertai dengan kartu monitor suhu.
Penyimpanan data Temperature Data Logger harus disertai dengan kartu monitor
suhu. Penyimpanan dara Temperature Data Logger dengan interval 5 menit dan di
print out seminggu sekali dan ditanda tangani oleh pemeriksa mengetahui pimpinan.

5. Toll in dan Toll out

Toll in merupakan istilah suatu pabrik menerima proses pembuatan obat dari pabrik
lain karena alasan tertentu. Toll out merupakan istilah aktivitas pabrik yang
memberikan proses pembuatan obatnya tersebut ke pabrik lain.

6. Cara menyimpan kemasan yang sudah diprinting

Penyimpanan kemasan yang sudah diprinting dipisahkan dengan kemasan yang lainnya
agar tidak terjadi ketercampur bauran.

Daftar Pustaka

BPOM, R. I. 2013. Petunjuk Operasional Penerapan Pedoman Cara Pembuatan Obat Yang
Baik 2012 Jilid I.

BPOM, R. I. 2015. Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Cara Distribusi Obat Yang Baik.

BPOM, R. I. 2018. Pedoman Cara Pembuatan Obat Yang Baik. Jakarta: BPOM.

Forghani, A., Sadjadi, S. J., & Farhang Moghadam, B., 2018. A supplier selection model in
pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A case study. PloS
one, 13(8), e0201604.

Management Sciences for Health. 2012. MDS-3 : Managing Access to Medicines and Health
Technologies. Arlington, VA: Management Sciences for Health.

Mauidzoh, U., & Zabidi, Y., 2007. Perancangan sistem penilaian dan seleksi supplier
menggunakan multi kriteria. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri, 5(3), 113-122.

a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Forghani A, Sadjadi SJ, Farhang
Moghadam B (2018) A supplier selection model in
pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS
and MILP: A case study. PLoS ONE 13(8):
e0201604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0201604
Editor: Yong Deng, Southwest University, CHINA
Received: December 24, 2017
Accepted: June 21, 2018
Published: August 15, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Forghani et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: The author received no specific funding
for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A supplier selection model in pharmaceutical
supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A
case study
Athena Forghani1*, Seyed Jafar Sadjadi2, Babak Farhang Moghadam3
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,
Iran, 2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran,
3 Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran
* a.forghani@srbiau.ac.ir
Abstract
Supplier selection is one of the critical processes in supplier chain management which is
associated with the flow of goods and services from the supplier of raw material to the final
consumer. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel approach and improves the sup-
plier selection in a multi-item/multi-supplier environment, and provide the importance and
the reliability of the criteria by handling vagueness and imperfection of information in deci-
sion making process. First, principal component analysis (PCA) method is used to reduce
the number of supplier selection criteria in pharmaceutical companies. Next, using the most
important criteria resulted from the PCA method, the importance and the reliability of the
selected criteria are assessed by a group of decision-maker (DM). Then, the importance
value of each supplier with respect to each product is obtained via the Technique for Order
Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) based on the concept of Z-numbers
called Z-TOPSIS. Finally, these values are used as inputs in a mixed integer linear program-
ming (MILP) to determine the suppliers and the amount of the products provided from the
related suppliers. To validate the proposed methodology, an application is performed in a
pharmaceutical company. The results show that the proposed method could provide prom-
ising results in decision making process more appropriately.
Introduction
Supplier selection is one of the most important activities for most enterprises and has a sub-
stantial impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire supply chain [1,2]. It is likely
that the manufacturer allocates more than 60% of its total sales on purchased services and
materials [3]. Furthermore, material cost is up to 70% of the finished product expenses [4].
Therefore, selecting the appropriate suppliers can result in reduced purchasing cost, decreased
supplying risk and improved product quality [5].
When it comes to select a suitable supplier, various criteria need to be contemplated.
However, it would not be appropriate to recommend and sometimes even it would not be
possible to take into account all the criteria upon final decision making due to the diversity
1 / 17
 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

of strategies among the industries concerning the supply chain regarding the product’s
characteristics.
Typically in dealing with the supplier selection discussion, two kinds of problems are pro-
pounded: First, the supplier is the one (natural or legal entity) who satisfies all the purchasers’
requirements (single sourcing); in this type of supplier selection, the management should
make the only decision to determine the best supplier. Second, there is no single supplier to
meet all the purchasers’ needs (multiple sourcing). Many companies encounter some disrup-
tion or inadequate supply capacity on the part of the supplier. Adopting the second model,
which is the ‘multiple sourcing’ the purchasing company meanwhile using the business pro-
cess, can resolve the unpredicted delay of supply by one of the numerous other suppliers.
It would not be convenient for the DM to choose suitable suppliers who can fulfill all the
firms’ demands based on different criteria. Another point to consider is that as a multiple crite-
ria decision-making (MCDM) problem, the supplier selection would lie under the effect of
many qualitative and quantitative contradictory factors. In order to maintain an equilibrium
among such conflicting criteria, many studies have proposed various models, encompassing
single to hybrid approaches. Adopting the single approach, the studies often consider locating
a solution for the supplier selection problem through specifying the optimal quantities that are
usually under the effect of a number of constraints. As an example, Zhang and Zhang [6] in
their study for minimizing the total cost including the product and fixed costs with stochastic
demand, developed a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model based on the assumption that
all the existing suppliers could meet the qualitative criteria level. In another study on the sup-
plier selection problem, Du et al. [7] considered the life-cycle cost through developing a bi-
objective model that could account for the operational cost together with the purchasing cost
since decreasing only the purchasing cost may result in more frequent failure of equipment,
which results in increase of the maintenance costs. For model solving, they introduced a Pareto
genetic algorithm hybridization, multi-intersection and similarity crossover strategy. In order
to minimize the total cost of the product and maximize the quality of the products as well as
the reliability of delivery, Karpak et al. [8] used goal programming (GP) in hydraulic pump
division of a US based manufacturer. Karpak et al. [9] employed visual interactive GP in find-
ing solution for single- and multiple-product supplier selection problems. In order to select
the suppliers and allocating the required quantities based on the total cost of product, total
quality and delivery reliability, Karpak et al. [10] designed a GP model subject to demand and
capacity constraints. Fuzzy mixed-integer GP was developed by Kumar et al. [11] for solving
the supplier selection problem of fuzzy nature. An MIP model for stochastic supplier selection
was introduced by Amorim et al. [12] in the food industry. A Monte Carlo simulation was
applied for fuzzy GP by Moghaddam [13] for the purpose of solving the supplier selection
problem.
Amin et al. [14] was the first to consider the strategic perspectives in applying hybrid
models by devising a two-stage integrated quantified SWOT analysis technique with fuzzy
linear programming (fuzzy LP) to resolve the supplier selection problem. A number of
studies have attempted to apply historical data for supplier selection problem; Faez et al.
[15] for example introduced an integrated case-based reasoning with MIP for selecting
the supplier and the required quantities of goods to order. An integrated approach of
AHP, enhanced by rough set theory and multi-objectives mixed-integer linear program-
ming (MILP), was introduced by Xia and Wu [16] for a multi-product supplier selection
and order allocation problem, in which the suppliers will offer price discounts on sum of
the trade volumes.
Demirtas and Üstün [17], based on the analytical network process (ANP) and the multi-
objective mixed-integer programming (MOMIP), developed a two-stage supplier selection

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 2 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

and order allocation model to minimize the purchasing value, the budget and defect rates.
Using the Tchebycheff procedure the model was solved by the -constraint method and the
reservation level. In order to deal with the supplier selection problem, Wu et al. [18] used the
Delphi method, ANP, and the MOMIP model for supplier selection. In this model the criteria
are first generated by experts using the Delphi method. Then, the obtained criteria are served
as input for the ANP method and in the end, the MOMIP model is utilized for selecting the
best suppliers and the relevant quantities.
Additionally, in a study undertaken by Lee et al. [19] the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multiple goal
planning were used for selecting the suppliers of a company producing thin-film-transistor liq-
uid-crystal display products. A two-stage model was developed by Liao and Kao [20] by apply-
ing fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-choice GP for selection the appropriate suppliers and allocating
the orders. Also fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-choice GP were used by Rouyendegh and Saputro
[21] in a fertilizer and chemical producing company. In another study conducted by Kilic [22],
the fuzzy TOPSIS was employed together with MILP for selecting the best supplier in a multi-
item/multi-supplier problem. Perçin [23] used integrated AHP–GP for supplier selection
problem. SWOT analysis was used in a study carried out by Ghorbani et al. [24] for evaluating
the suppliers; they also used integer linear programming (ILP) model for selecting and deter-
mining the quantities. The group decision making with different voting power and linear pro-
gramming (LP) were used by Sodenkamp et al. [25] for supplier selection problem. Simić [26]
has reviewed the 50 years of fuzzy set theory and models for supplier selection.
This paper intends to adopt a qualitative method by using PCA, Z-TOPSIS algorithm [27]
with triangular fuzzy number and a mixed integer linear programming for supplier selection.
In order to show its applicability, the proposed methodology is implemented using a case
study involving a pharmaceutical company.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sections 2 and 3 present the supplier criteria
in pharmaceutical companies and a questionnaire to gather information about the impor-
tance of the criteria; Section 4 reviews the methodology of PCA and its application in reduc-
ing the number of the criteria; Section 5 briefly reviews Z-TOPSIS method; Section 6
presents a new model; Section 7 gives a numerical example to show applicability of the pro-
posed model; Section 8 presents sensitivity analysis of the results; and Section 9 concludes
the paper.

Supplier criteria
In pharmaceutical companies, the main criteria are grouped under six categories, which are
cost, quality, services, delivery, supplier profile and overall personnel capabilities. These pri-
mary criteria are decomposed into various sub-criteria as represented in Table 1:
In the next section, a questionnaire is used to collect information about the importance of
these 24 criteria. Then, the PCA method is applied to reduce the number of criteria to ease the
methodology.

Methods
To rate the supplier selection criteria (c1,c2,. . .,c24) from 0 (the least important) to 10 (the most
important), we asked the business managers of 34 pharmaceutical companies: Hakim(x1),
Aboureyhan(x2), Behvazan(x3), Akbarieh(x4), Arya(x5), Raha(x6), Aryo Gen(x7), Bakhtar
Bioshimi(x8), Cosar(x9), Behsa(x10), Caspian Tamin(x11), Tehran Chemi(x12), Cobel Darou
(x13), Doctor Abidi(x14), Exir(x15), Farabi(x16), Iran Najou(x17), Jaber Ebne Hayan(x18), Kish
Medipharm(x19), Loghman(x20), Alborz Darou(x21), Osveh(x22), Pars Darou(x23), Ramofarmin

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 3 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 1. Supplier selection criteria in pharmaceutical companies.

Main Criteria Sub-criteria
Cost c1 product price
c2 Payment terms
c3 Delivery cost
Quality c4 Product quality
c5 The number of the defective items
c6 Packaging and labeling
c7 ISO 9001 (quality management system certification)
c8 Research, development and innovation
Services c9 Customer relationship management (CRM)
c10 After sales service/warranty
Delivery c11 Geographical location
c12 On time delivery
Supplier profile c13 Financial status
c14 Management and organization
c15 Technical ability
c16 Facilities
c17 Capacity
c18 Past record documentation
c19 Certificate of GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice)
c20 ISO 14001 (environmental management system certification)
c21 OHSAS 18001 (occupational health and safety management system
certification)
c22 Risk assessment system
Overall personnel c23 labor overall skills
capabilities c24 labor experience
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t001

(x24), Chemi Darou(x25), Razi(x26), Shahid Ghazy(x27), Sina Darou(x28), Behestan Darou(x29),
Rooz Darou(x30), Sobhan Darou(x31), Zahraavi(x32), Iran Darou(x33), Shafa(x34).
Note that the research was accomplished during the year of 2017. The questionnaire (S1
File) was sent to the companies through e-mail address, and completion of the questionnaire
was taken as consent. Table 2 presents the results of the completed questionnaires.
Next section reviews the methodology of PCA and its application in reducing the number
of the supplier selection criteria.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Pearson [28] was the first to introduce the PCA for the dimensionality reduction purpose. With
respect to PCA, two main ideas can be enumerated; first, it provides an efficient data analysis
tool for identifying and expressing data patterns and determining data similarities as well as dif-
ferences. Second, in terms of its ability for data compression through minimizing the data set
dimensionality which is constituted from a numerous interrelated variables with almost zero
information loss [29]. Data compression can be performed through original data transformation
into a new collection of variables and in fact into new set of principal components (zs) virtually
uncorrelated to each other. Depending on the level of significance, the zs will be represented in
declining order, so that only the first few number of important ones are retained. Using the
PCA, the data dimensionality is decreased and the multicollinearity can be removed [30].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 4 / 17

 Table 2. Questionnaire.
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 x12 x13 x14 x15 x16 x17 x18 x19 x20 x21 x22 x23 x24 x25 x26 x27 x28 x29 x30 x31 x32 x33 x34
c1 10 9 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 7 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 9
c2 5 9 6 5 6 6 6 10 7 9 10 8 8 3 5 8 7 8 6 7 4 10 6 6 6 5 5 7 7 6 6 7 7 8
c3 6 8 6 4 6 7 6 10 7 10 10 6 8 6 4 4 6 9 4 7 5 10 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 3 5 7 7 7
c4 10 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
c5 3 6 6 2 6 3 5 8 5 7 10 4 7 3 2 7 10 7 5 6 4 10 6 9 6 3 6 6 7 6 6 6 10 9
c6 4 7 6 1 6 5 5 6 6 7 10 3 7 6 1 4 10 7 4 6 2 9 9 10 7 4 8 6 7 3 3 6 10 9
c7 4 8 6 4 6 2 5 8 4 6 8 3 7 6 4 3 10 7 5 6 5 10 8 8 7 4 10 6 7 4 4 6 7 9
c8 3 4 5 3 5 4 4 8 4 10 10 6 6 1 2 1 8 9 3 5 4 10 6 6 5 3 7 5 6 4 1 5 8 8
c9 9 10 8 10 7 9 8 9 10 10 10 7 8 9 10 8 10 9 10 10 8 10 9 10 8 9 10 10 10 9 8 10 10 8
c10 7 5 8 9 7 6 7 9 6 8 10 5 8 6 9 5 10 8 4 7 7 10 9 10 7 5 8 7 8 4 6 7 10 8
c11 3 8 2 0 4 5 3 10 2 7 6 0 4 0 1 0 3 7 1 2 2 7 8 5 3 1 6 3 4 2 1 3 6 8

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018

c12 4 8 6 4 6 1 5 10 4 10 10 6 7 2 3 1 9 8 7 6 3 10 9 9 7 2 5 6 7 7 1 6 10 8
c13 6 10 6 7 6 6 6 8 7 7 6 6 8 4 7 4 8 6 6 7 5 10 7 8 7 3 8 7 7 5 5 7 10 8
c14 5 8 6 5 6 6 5 8 6 7 6 5 7 2 5 7 6 7 6 7 3 10 6 7 7 8 10 6 7 6 7 6 9 8
c15 7 7 7 6 8 4 7 7 7 8 7 8 8 6 8 7 10 7 8 8 6 10 8 10 7 7 10 8 8 6 8 8 10 10
c16 4 7 6 4 6 4 5 8 4 8 8 4 7 2 6 4 7 9 5 6 4 10 7 7 6 5 10 6 7 5 4 6 10 9
c17 2 8 6 5 6 4 5 8 4 8 8 4 7 5 6 5 9 9 5 6 2 10 7 7 6 5 9 6 7 4 4 6 10 9
c18 10 10 9 10 9 8 9 10 9 10 7 9 10 8 9 10 9 10 10 10 8 10 9 9 7 8 10 9 6 8 8 9 9 7
c19 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
c20 5 6 7 4 6 5 6 8 6 7 6 5 8 5 4 5 10 7 6 5 6 10 8 8 6 6 10 7 7 7 5 7 7 7
c21 3 6 4 3 4 2 4 6 2 6 4 3 6 3 3 4 9 7 3 3 3 8 8 8 4 3 10 5 5 3 4 5 6 7
c22 3 6 5 1 4 1 3 3 0 3 4 2 5 3 1 4 9 7 2 3 1 10 7 7 4 2 8 4 5 2 5 4 7 9
c23 6 9 6 6 6 7 7 5 5 5 6 4 8 5 7 5 10 8 7 7 5 10 6 6 6 6 8 7 7 7 5 7 10 8
c24 6 8 5 6 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 6 8 7 6 5 10 7 6 7 5 10 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 5 7 10 9
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t002

5 / 17
Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain
 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Methodology
Let x = (x1,x2,. . .,xj,. . .,xp); and n as the number of observations allocated for each variable,
hence the data matrix x would be:
2 3
X11 X12


X1j


X1p
6 7
6 7
6 X21 X22


X2j


X2p 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . . 7
6 7
x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xj ; . . . ; xp Þ ¼ 6 7 ð1Þ
6 Xi1 Xi2


Xij


Xip 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . . 7
6 7
4 5
Xn1 Xn2


Xn3


Xnp

The PCA tries to find a new set of variables zs, where zs = (z1s,z2s,. . .,zns) is the linear func-
tions of x. It can be said that from z1 to zp, in descending order of importance, they are uncor-
related:
2 3 2a a12


a1j


a1p
3 2 3
z1 11 x1
6 z 7 6 7 6 7
6 2 7 6 a21 a22


a2j


a2p 7 6
7 x 7
6 7 6 6 7 6 2 7
6 7 7 6 7
6 . 7 6 7 6 .. 7
6 .. 7 6 . . . . . . 6 . 7
6 7 6 .. .. .. .. . . .. 7 7 6 7
6 7 6 6 7
6 7¼6 76 7: ð2Þ
6 7 6 a a


a


a 7 6 7
6 zi 7 6 i1 i2 ij ip 7 6
7 6 xi 7 7
6 7 6
6 7 6 6 .. 7
7 6 7
6 . 7 6 .. .. . . .. . . 7 6 . 7
6 . 7 6 . . . . . . 7 4 . 7
6
4 . 5 4 5 . 5
zp an1 an2


anj


anp x p

Accordingly,
zi ¼ ai1 x1 þ ai2 x2 þ


þ aij xj þ


þ aip xp ; ð3Þ

where the αij represents the weight value, reflecting the vector contribution value of xj to zi.
The αij is normalized as follows:
ai1 þ ai2 þ


þ aij þ


þ aip ¼ 1: ð4Þ

Hence the linear combined score of PCA (SCOREPCA) is defined as

Pk
SCOREPCA ¼ ðm1 z1 þ m2 z2 þ


þ mi zi þ


þ mk zk Þ= i¼1 mi ; ð5Þ

where the μi represents the contribution weight of zi where μ1>μ2>. . .>μi>. . .>μk the total
SCOREPCA and K represents the number of zs selected to retain (K < P), where K is determined
in two ways: 1) selecting the zi in which the μi value is greater than 1. 2) selecting the highest
number of zs in which the sum total ∑μ contribution is greater than 85%.

Application
Here Table 2 presents the data used as the supplier’s attribute Xij, indicating that the selection
criterion score i based on the business manager j will shape an n×p matrix X, in which n repre-
sents the number of the selected criteria and p denotes the number of business managers.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 6 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Thus, the matrix X is entered into the PCA calculation (using SPSS), and a set of zs is devel-
oped. The first five zs will have 86.278% cumulative percentage which is higher than 85 percent
of total variance. Hence the variance percentage of extraction sums of squared loadings of the
first five zs will be used in Eq (5) in order to develop the SCOREPCA of individual selection cri-
terion. At this point, the optimum supplier criteria are selected based on the highest number.
Based on the results of these 24 cases, c19 (certificate of GMP), c4 (product quality), c1 (prod-
uct price), c18 (past record documentation) and c9 (CRM) have the highest SCOREPCA among
the other criteria and they are selected as the best criteria by the scores 6.390, 6.305, 6.147,
5.997 and 5.700, respectively.
Since GMP is the primary condition for selecting the supplier and all firms must have this
certificate, we therefore, set aside this criterion for the rest of the survey.
Next section reviews Z-TOPSIS. This method, using the scores resulted from the PCA
method, will be applied to obtain the importance value of each supplier with respect to each
product.

Z-TOPSIS method
A brief review of some principle definitions of fuzzy sets from Chen [31], Chen and Lee [32],
and Sotoudeh-Anvari and Sadi-Nezhad [33] are given below.

Definition 1: Fuzzy set

A fuzzy set A defined on a universe X can be represented as:
A ¼ fðx; mA ðxÞÞjx 2 Xg; ð6Þ

where the μA(x): X![0,1] is a membership function of A. The μA(x) membership value can
describe the belongingness degree of x2X in A. In this study, the type-1 fuzzy number and Z-
number have been represented in triangular fuzzy number form.

Definition 2: Type-1 fuzzy number

A triangular fuzzy number A e ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ can be represented by the following membership
function:
8
>
> 0; x 2 ð 1; a1 Þ
>
>
>
> x a1
>
>
>
< a ; x 2 ½a1 ; a2 Š
2 a1
mA~ ðxÞ ¼ a3 x ð7Þ
>
>
>
> ; x 2 ½a 2 ; a3 Š
>
> a3 a2
>
>
>
:
0; x 2 ða3 ; þ1Þ

Definition 3: Z-number
The Z-number concept is associated with the reliability of the information. The Z-number is
constituted from two components: Z ¼ ðA; e BÞ,
e which A is the fuzzy number and B e represents
the reliability of the fuzzy number, which is also given in fuzzy number [34].
Chen [31] proposed linguistic numbers in the form of Table 3 and Table 4. Additionally,
Table 5 employs the Z-TOPSIS technique to address the reliability of DMs. The numbers in
this table are proposed by the authors.
In order to determine the alternatives’ ranking order, the following algorithm is operated,
whereby the Step 1 is adopted from Kang et al. [35]; however it must be noticed that for the

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 7 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 3. Linguistic variable for importance weight of each criterion.

Linguistic variables Triangular fuzzy number
Very Low (VL) (0,0,0.1)
Low (L) (0,0.1,0.3)
Medium Low (ML) (0.1,0.3,0.5)
Medium (M) (0.3,0.5,0.7)
Medium High (MH) (0.5,0.7,0.9)
High (H) (0.7,0.9,1)
Very High (VH) (0.9,1,1)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t003

expert’s reliability, it uses the linguistics variable presented in Table 5 for the component B in
Z-number, followed by Steps 2–7 from Chen [31].

Step 1: Using the information obtained from the Table 5, the

component B e is derived and then the Z-Number is converted to
Type-1 fuzzy number
Assume a Z-number, Z ¼ ðA; e BÞ.
e Suppose that A e ¼ fðx; mA~ Þjx 2 ½0; 1Šg; B
e ¼ fðx; mB~ Þjx 2
½0; 1Šg; mA~ and mB~ are triangular membership functions. The second part (reliability) should be
converted into crisp number through fuzzy expectation as presented in Eq (8).
R
xm ~ dx
a¼ R B ; ð8Þ
mB~ dx
R
where the represents an algebraic integration. Afterwards, the second part weight–the reliabil-
ity–should be added to the first part. Eq (9) shows the weighted Z-number.
e a ¼ fðx; mA~ a ÞjmA~ a ðxÞ ¼ amA~ a ðxÞ; x 2 ½0; 1Šg
Z ð9Þ

It can be type-1 fuzzy number as presented by the Eq (10).

 
e 0 ¼ fhx; mZ~ a ijmZ~ a ðxÞ ¼ amA~ a pxffiffi ; x 2 ½0; 1Šg
Z ð10Þ
a

e 0 features are similar fuzzy expectation to Z

As can be understood from Kang et al. [35], the Z ea.

e and weight matrix, W

Step 2: Construct decision matrix, D f
Suppose that a decision making group is having K number of people; here the criteria impor-
tance and the alternatives pertaining to the individual criterion must be calculated using the

Table 4. Linguistic variable for the ratings of all alternatives.

Linguistic variables Triangular fuzzy number
Very Poor (VP) (0,0,1)
Poor (P) (0,1,3)
Medium Poor (MP) (1,3,5)
Medium (M) (3,5,7)
Medium Good (MG) (5,7,9)
Good (G) (7,9,10)
Very good (VG) (9,10,10)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t004

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 8 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 5. Linguistic variables for the expert’s reliability.

Linguistic variables Triangular fuzzy number
Strongly Unlikely (SU) (0,0,0.1)
Unlikely (U) (0,0.1,0.3)
Somewhat Unlikely (SWU) (0.1,0.3,0.5)
Neutral (N) (0.3,0.5,0.7) (0.3,0.5,0.7)
Somewhat Likely (SWL) (0.5,0.7,0.9)
Likely (L) (0.7,0.9,1)
Strongly Likely (SL) (0.9,1,1)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t005

Eq (11).

1 1
e
x ij ¼ x ðþÞe
½e x Kij Š;
x 2ij ðþÞ


ðþÞe
K ij
ð11Þ
1 1
e j ¼ ½e
w w 2j ðþÞ


ðþÞe
w ðþÞe w Kj Š;
K j

where the e e j represent the rating and the importance weight of Kth decision maker.
x ij and w
As can be seen from the Eq (12), the multi-criteria decision making problem can readily be
explained in matrix format.

2 3
e 11
X e 12
X


e 1n
X
6 7
6 7
6 e 21 e 22 e 2n 7
6 X X


X 7
6 7
D¼6
e
6
7
6 .. .. .. .. 77 ð12Þ
6 . . . . 7
6 7
4 5
e m1
X e m2
X


Xe mn
w e1
e ¼ ½w e2
w


e n Š;
w

where e e j ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n constitute the linguistic variables. The above linguis-

x ij for all i, j and w
tic variables are described using the fuzzy numbers, e e ij ¼ ðwj1 ; wj2 ; wj3 Þ.
x ij ¼ ðaij ; bij ; cij Þ and w

e
Step 3: Construct normalized fuzzy decision matrix, R
To make different scales comparable, the linear scale transformation shall be used to create the
normalized decision making matrix as represented in Eq (13).
Suppose that

e ¼ ½er ij Šmn ;
R ð13Þ

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 9 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

where B and C respectively are the set of benefit and cost criteria, and
!
aij bij cij
e
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j 2 B;
cj cj cj
!
aj aj aj
e
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j 2 C; ð14Þ
cij bij aij
cj ¼ max i cij if j 2 B;
aj ¼ mini aij if j 2 C:

The above mentioned technique is intended to retain the feature that the ranges of normal-
ized fuzzy numbers are in the interval [0,1].

e
Step 4: Construct weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix, V
Given the different importance of each individual criterion, constructing the weighted normal-
ized fuzzy decision matrix would be possible using the Eq (15).
e ¼ ½e
V v ij Šmn i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m and j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð15Þ

where e
v ij ¼ e
r ij ð:Þe
wj.

Step 5: Find fuzzy positive-ideal solution, A* and fuzzy negative-

ideal solution, A-
Next, we normalize all ev ij in terms of some new triangular fuzzy numbers. Afterwards, the
fuzzy positive ideal solution and fuzzy negative ideal solution are defined according to the Eq
(16).
A ¼ ðe
u 1 ; e
u 2 ; . . . ; e
u n Þ;
ð16Þ
A ¼ ðe
u1 ; e
u2 ; . . . ; e
u n Þ;

v j ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ and, e
where e v j ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ for j = 1,2,. . .,n.

Step 6: Find the distance of each alternative from A* and A-


Now it would be possible to calculate the distance of each alternative from A and A- in accor-
dance with the Eq (17).
Xn
di ¼ j¼1
dðe u j Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m;
u ij ; e
Xn ð17Þ
di ¼ j¼1
u ij ; e
dðe u j Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m;

where d(.,.) is the distance measurement between two fuzzy numbers.

Step 7: Find closeness coefficient, CCi

For the purpose of determining the ranking order of all alternatives, a closeness coefficient
shall be defined when the di and di of each alternative Ai for i = 1,2,. . .,m have been calculated.
To calculate the closeness coefficient of each individual alternative, the Eq (18) is used.
di
CCi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð18Þ
di þ di

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 10 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain


It is obvious that by the approaching of CCi to 1, an alternative Ai gets closer to A and far-
ther from A-. Hence, based on the closeness coefficient, the ranking order of all alternatives
can be determined and from a set of feasible alternatives, the best one can be selected.
In the next section, a new model is presented to determine the suppliers and the amount of
the products provided from the related suppliers.

The proposed model

The proposed methodology consists of three steps. In the first step, using the PCA method, the
number of supplier selection criteria is reduced. In the next step, using the scores resulted
from the PCA method, the importance value of each supplier is obtained via Z-TOPSIS with
respect to each item. Then, these values are used in the mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) model [36] as explained below.

Assumptions
1. In this study, the purchaser would be allowed to buy from several suppliers.
2. A multi-product environment is considered for this study and several products can be sup-
plied for the customer by the suppliers.
3. The product amounts and the number of suppliers are known.
4. The buyer is allowed to buy for only one single period.
5. Demand has been considered as constant, without any change during the planning period.
6. A fixed budget for purchasing all the products has been considered.

Indices
i and j represent the suppliers and the products, respectively.

Parameters
dij The mean of defective items of product i purchased from supplier j
SIVij The Importance value of supplier j pertinent to item i resulting from the Z-TOPSIS
method
Pij Price of product i purchased from supplier j
BT The total amount of budget available for procurement of various products.
Di Demand for product i
Sij Minimum capacity of product i purchased from supplier j
S0ij Maximum capacity of product i purchased from supplier j
Rij Minimum order of product i purchased from supplier j
R0ij Maximum order of product i purchased from supplier j
maxNS Maximum number of possible suppliers to be selected
minNS Minimum number of possible suppliers to be selected

Decision variables
xij The amount of product i purchased from supplier j
yij The binary variable, which is one in case the product i is purchased from the supplier j and
will be zero, otherwise

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 11 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

MILP model
Pn Pn
Max Z¼ i¼1 j¼1 SIVij xij ð19Þ

Pn Pn
s:t: i¼1 P x  BT
j¼1 ij ij ð20Þ

Pn
x ð1
j¼1 ij dij Þ  Di ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m ð21Þ

Sij yij  xij  S0ij yij; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n ð22Þ

Rij yij  xij  R0ij yij; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n ð23Þ

Pn Pn
minNS  i¼1 y  maxNS;
j¼1 ij ð24Þ

xij  0; yij 2 f0; 1g; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n ð25Þ

The objective function is presented in Eq (19) which determines the highest importance value
of the selected suppliers relative to each product item through maximizing the related
expression.
In constraints (20). the sum of the required budget must be determined, Eq (21) is associ-
ated with demand, Eqs 22 and 23 determine whether an item, say the part i is ordered from
supplier j, the ordered number of items must lie within the supplier capacity and the required
demand, respectively. Finally, the selected number of suppliers must be restricted by a mini-
mum and a maximum numbers given by Eq (24).
In the section, a numerical example is given to show applicability of the proposed model.
Note that in the first step, the business managers of 34 pharmaceutical companies are asked to
rate the 24 supplier selection criteria. Using the PCA method, these 24 supplier selection crite-
ria are reduced to 4, which are: product quality, product price, past record documentation and
CRM. Therefore, all the pharmaceutical companies can only consider these four criteria and
the scores resulted from the PCA method are considered as input for the next steps for the
implementation of Z-TOPSIS and MILP model. For the example of the proposed method, we
consider one firm with two decision makers who used 4 criteria obtained from the previous
method. In other words, all other pharmaceutical firms could use these 4 criteria for ranking
purposes.

A case study
In the present study, Microsoft Excel is used for the suppliers’ ranking. The evaluation of rank-
ing and the suppliers’ weights processes are described below. In this paper, we have used the
linguistic numbers given in Table 2 to evaluate the criteria importance; also we have used the
information of Table 5 for criteria reliability measurement represented in Table 6 in the Z-
number form.
Next, in order to evaluate the suppliers’ rating corresponding to each criterion, the DMs
use the linguistic rating variable presented in Table 4 and make use of the data given in Table 5
for measuring the reliability of the supplier performance evaluation corresponding to each
individual criterion as represented in Table 7 and Table 8.
Now for the purpose of supplier selection problem case study, the Z-TOPSIS Algorithm is
applied. Table 9 below shows the final results:

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 12 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 6. Importance of the criteria and the DM reliability.

DM1 DM2
e
A e
B e
A e
B
Product quality VH L VH SWL
Product price H SL VH SL
Past record documentation H SWL M L
CRM MH N MH SWL
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t006

As we can observe from the results of Table 9, supplier 2 (CC2 = 0.635) is considered as the
most important one followed by supplier 3 (CC3 = 0.526), supplier 1 (CC1 = 0.474) and sup-
plier 4 (CC4 = 0.354).
These importance values are input to the proposed mathematical model for the coefficients
of the objective function. The parameter values that are required for supplying one item are
presented below.

SIV11 ¼ 0:474; SIV12 ¼ 0:635; SIV13 ¼ 0:526; SIV14 ¼ 0:354;

P11 ¼ 2; P12 ¼ 2; P13 ¼ 4; P14 ¼ 5; BT ¼ 2500;

d11 ¼ 0:020; d12 ¼ 0:016; d13 ¼ 0:050; d14 ¼ 0:010; D1 ¼ 100;

S11 ¼ 10; S12 ¼ 20; S13 ¼ 50; S14 ¼ 0; S011 ¼ 200; S012 ¼ 100; S013 ¼ 200; S014 ¼ 50;

R11 ¼ 0; R12 ¼ 0; R13 ¼ 0; R14 ¼ 0; R011 ¼ 100; R012 ¼ 50; R013 ¼ 200; R014 ¼ 200;

minNS ¼ 2; maxNS ¼ 3:

The mathematical model is coded in GAMS optimization program. The optimum solution
and the amount of products that suppliers can provide are given below.
In order to code the mathematical model the GAMS optimization program has been used.
The optimum solution and the product amounts that could be provided by the suppliers are

Table 7. Rating of four suppliers by DM1 for all criteria.

Product quality Product price Past record CRM
documentation
e
A e
B e
A e
B e
A e
B e
A e
B
Supplier 1 MP L VG L MG L F N
Supplier 2 MG SL G SWL MG L G SWU
Supplier 3 F SWL G L G L MP SWL
Supplier 4 G SWL G SWL F SWL MP L
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t007

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 13 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 8. Rating of four suppliers by DM2 for all criteria.

Product quality Product price Past record CRM
documentation
e
A e
B e
A e
B e
A e
B e
A e
B
Supplier 1 F L G SL G SL G SWU
Supplier 2 MG L VG SWL F L G N
Supplier 3 MG N MG L MG L F SWL
Supplier 4 VG SWL G SWL MG N MP L
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t008

shown below.
z ¼ 184:200;

x11 ¼ 100; x12 ¼ 50; x13 ¼ 200; x14 ¼ 0;

y11 ¼ 1; y12 ¼ 1; y13 ¼ 1; y14 ¼ 0:

Sensitivity analysis
To investigate the effect of criteria weights on ranking of different suppliers, a sensitivity analy-
sis is performed. Using varying degrees of criteria weights, resulted from the first step of
Z-TOPSIS method, we have measured the changes in the outcome. Specifically, six cases were
examined, but the ranking of the suppliers has remained unchanged. The details of the cases
are presented in Table 10, and the sensitivity results for the suppliers 1 to 4 are shown in
Table 11. The preliminary results have indicated that the proposed method could provide rela-
tively robust results for supplier selection problem.

Conclusions
Contrary to the broad spectrum of studies undertaken on the supplier selection, the supplier
assessment and selection through the application of specific measures relevant to the pharma-
ceutical industry were not extensively investigated. To bridge the gap, the current study has
introduced a new selection model for the under study company aiming at presenting the ideas
on the set up procedure of a Z-TOPSIS based selection model particularly designed to resolve
the supplier selection problem in pharmaceutical industry. However, for the other industries,
the relevant characteristics and requirements must be primarily studied. The questionnaire
used in this paper was strongly recommended for determining the tailor-made supplier selec-
tion criteria in pharmaceutical industry. Obviously, for other industries, the questionnaire
must be updated based on different criteria.
The PCA method has been used in this study to cut the number of supplier selection crite-
ria, coupled with MILP model based on the Z-TOPSIS method. The merits development was
described below.

Table 9. Suppliers ranking based on Z-TOPSIS.

Supplier CCi Rank
Supplier 1 0.474 3rd
Supplier 2 0.635 1st
Supplier 3 0.526 2nd
Supplier 4 0.354 4th
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t009

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 14 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Table 10. Criteria weights according to different cases.

Current Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
case
Product quality (0.803 0.893 (0.767 (0.730 (0.694 (0.657 (0.621 (0.584
0.893) 0.856 0.820 0.783 0.747 0.710 0.674
0.856) 0.820) 0.783) 0.747) 0.710) 0.674)
Product price (0.800 0.950 (0.764 (0.727 (0.691 (0.654 (0.618 (0.581
1.000) 0.914 0.877 0.841 0.804 0.768 0.731
0.964) 0.927) 0.891) 0.854) 0.818) 0.781)
Past record (0.435 0.614 (0.472 (0.508 (0.545 (0.581 (0.618 (0.654
documentation 0.750) 0.650 0.687 0.723 0.760 0.796 0.833
0.787) 0.823) 0.860) 0.896) 0.933) 0.969)
CRM (0.386 0.540 (0.422 (0.459 (0.495 (0.532 (0.568 (0.605
0.695) 0.577 0.613 0.650 0.686 0.723 0.759
0.731) 0.768) 0.804) 0.841) 0.877) 0.914)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t010

Table 11. Sensitivity analysis results.

Current case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Supplier 1 0.4741 0.477 0.479 0.482 0.484 0.486 0.488
Supplier 2 0.635 0.635 0.634 0.633 0.631 0.629 0.627
Supplier 3 0.526 0.526 0.525 0.525 0.524 0.523 0.522
Supplier 4 0.354 0.352 0.349 0.347 0.345 0.342 0.340
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604.t011

The PCA can effectively remove the multicollinearity existing among the criteria ranking
and would help reducing the trade-offs and the errors frequency in the questionnaire. The sub-
jective errors also could efficiently be reduced using the PCA, meaning that the weight allo-
cated to each z would be generated automatically. This model avoids complex and subjective
pair-wise comparison for determining the ranking weights, which would eventually result in
mitigation of this type of subjective errors. Moreover, it reduces the dimensionality of the
questionnaire data meanwhile retaining the significant amount of information.
TOPSIS method using Z-numbers is used in this paper through extending the fuzzy rule
based approach in multi-criteria decision making analysis. The proposed method, meanwhile
providing a more useful way of handling vagueness and imperfection of information in deci-
sion making process, represents the expert knowledge more precisely. This method is more
efficient compared with the current non-rule based TOPSIS in relation with ranking process.
Moreover, due to the software availability (SPSS, Microsoft Excel and GAMS), the proposed
model is considered a user-friendly tool applicable for supplier selection.
As a future study, it is possible to use recent advances of robust optimization for supplier
selection and we leave it for interested researchers. Furthermore, it would be interesting if the
future work discusses the relationship between the results of this paper and the ones in the
quotient space of fuzzy numbers [37,38] or symmetric fuzzy numbers [39].

Supporting information
S1 File. English questionnaire.
(PDF)
S2 File. Farsi questionnaire.
(PDF)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 15 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Babak Farhang Moghadam.
Investigation: Athena Forghani.
Methodology: Seyed Jafar Sadjadi.
Supervision: Seyed Jafar Sadjadi.

References
1. Bohner C, Minner S. Supplier selection under failure risk, quantity and business volume discounts.
Comput Ind Eng. 2017; 104:145–55.
2. Rao C, Xiao X, Goh M, Zheng J, Wen J. Compound mechanism design of supplier selection based on
multi-attribute auction and risk management of supply chain. Comput Ind Eng. 2017; 105:63–75.
3. Krajewsld LJ, Ritzman LP. Operations management strategy and analysis. London: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.; 1996.
4. Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated ana-
lytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ. 1998; 56–57:199–212.
5. Liu F-HF, Hai HL. The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. Int J Prod Econ.
2005; 97(3):308–17.
6. Zhang J-l, Zhang M-y. Supplier selection and purchase problem with fixed cost and constrained order
quantities under stochastic demand. Int J Prod Econ. 2011; 129(1):1–7.
7. Du B, Guo S, Huang X, Li Y, Guo J. A Pareto supplier selection algorithm for minimum the life cycle cost
of complex product system. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(9):4253–64.
8. Karpak B, Kasuganti RR, Kumcu E. Multi-objective decision-making in supplier selection: An application
of visual interactive goal programming. J Appl Bus Res. 1999; 15(2):57–72.
9. Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti RR. An application of visual interactive goal programming: a case in
vendor selection decisions. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal. 1999; 8(2):93–105.
10. Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti RR. Purchasing materials in the supply chain: Managing a multiobjec-
tive task. Eur J Purchas Supply Manage. 2001; 7(3):209–16.
11. Kumar M, Vrat P, Shankar R. A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a
supply chain. Comput Ind Eng. 2004; 46(1):69–85.
12. Amorim P, Curcio E, Almada-Lobo B, Barbosa-Póvoa APFD, Grossmann IE. Supplier selection in the
processed food industry under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res. 2016; 252(3):801–14.
13. Moghaddam KS. Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation in reverse logis-
tics systems under supply and demand uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(15):6237–54.
14. Amin SH, Razmi J, Zhang G. Supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy SWOT analysis
and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(1):334–42.
15. Faez F, Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy
case-based reasoning and mathematical programming model. Int J Prod Econ. 2009; 121(2):395–408.
16. Xia W, Wu Z. Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments. Omega. 2007;
35(5):494–504.
17. Demirtas EA, Üstün Ö. An integrated multiobjective decision making process for supplier selection and
order allocation. Omega. 2008; 36(1):76–90.
18. Wu W-Y, Sukoco BM, Li C-Y, Chen SH. An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for sup-
plier selection with bundling problem. Expert Syst Appl. 2009; 36(2, Part 1):2327–37.
19. Lee AHI, Kang H-Y, Chang C-T. Fuzzy multiple goal programming applied to TFT-LCD supplier selec-
tion by downstream manufacturers. Expert Syst Appl. 2009; 36(3, Part 2):6318–25.
20. Liao C-N, Kao H-P. An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply
chain management. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(9):10803–11.
21. Rouyendegh BD, Saputro TE. Supplier Selection Using Integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: A Case
Study. Procd Soc Behv. 2014; 116(Supplement C):3957–70.
22. Kilic HS. An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-supplier environment. Appl
Math Model. 2013; 37(14):7752–63.
23. Perçin S. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model in supplier selection. Meas Bus Excell.
2006; 10(4):34–49.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 16 / 17

 Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain

24. Ghorbani M, Arabzad SM, Bahrami M. Implementing Shannon Entropy, SWOT and Mathematical Pro-
gramming for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation. Int J Supply Chain Manag. 2012; 1(1):43–7.
25. Sodenkamp MA, Tavana M, Di Caprio D. Modeling synergies in multi-criteria supplier selection and
order allocation: An application to commodity trading. Eur J Oper Res. 2016; 254(3):859–74.
26. Simić D, Kovačević I, Svirčević V, Simić S. 50 years of fuzzy set theory and models for supplier assess-
ment and selection: A literature review. J Appl Log. 2017; 24:85–96.
27. Yaakob AM, Gegov A. Interactive TOPSIS Based Group Decision Making Methodology Using Z-Num-
bers. Int J Comput Int Sys. 2016; 9(2):311–24.
28. Pearson K. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos Mag. 1901; 2(6):559–
72.
29. Fan L. Structural health monitoring base on principal components analysis implemented on a distributed
and open system: City University of Hong Kong; 2006.
30. Lam KC, Hu TS, Ng ST. Using the principal component analysis method as a tool in contractor pre-qual-
ification. Constr Manage Econ. 2005; 23(7):673–84.
31. Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Set
Syst. 2000; 114(1):1–9.
32. Chen S-M, Lee L-W. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOP-
SIS method. Expert Syst Appl. 2010; 37(4):2790–8.
33. Sotoudeh-Anvari A, Sadi-Nezhad S. A new approach based on the level of reliability of information to
determine the relative weights of criteria in fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Inform Tech Decis Making. 2015; 8
(2):164–78.
34. Zadeh LA. A Note on Z-numbers. Inform Sciences. 2011; 181(14):2923–32.
35. Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y. A Method of Converting Z-number to Classical Fuzzy Number. J Inform
Comput Sci. 2012; 9(3):703–9.
36. Bani E, Jafari D. The total cost of logistics in supplier selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing,
multiple criteria and capacity constraint. Decis Sci Lett. 2016; 5(2):211–8.
37. Qiu D, Lu C, Zhang W, Lan Y. Algebraic properties and topological properties of the quotient space of
fuzzy numbers based on Mareš equivalence relation. Fuzzy Set Syst. 2014; 245:63–82.
38. Qiu D, Zhang W, Lu C. On fuzzy differential equations in the quotient space of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy
Set Syst. 2016; 295:72–98.
39. Qiu D, Zhang W. Symmetric fuzzy numbers and additive equivalence of fuzzy numbers. Soft Comput.
2013; 17(8):1471–7.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604 August 15, 2018 17 / 17

 PERANCANGAN SISTEM PENILAIAN
DAN SELEKSI SUPPLIER MENGGUNAKAN
MULTI KRITERIA

Uyuunul Mauidzoh
Jurusan Teknik Industri Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Adisutjipto
Jl. Janti Blok R Lanud Adisutjipto Yogyakarta

Yasrin Zabidi
Jurusan Teknik Industri Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Adisutjipto
Jl. Janti Blok R Lanud Adisutjipto Yogyakarta
email : yazma_2000@yahoo.com

ABSTRAKSI
Untuk memperoleh bahan baku yang berkualitas maka perusahaan harus dapat selektif
dalam memilih supplier. Untuk memilih supplier diperlukan suatu Sistem Evaluasi dan Seleksi
Supplier (SESS) yang mempertimbangkan kriteria finansial dan non finansial (multi kriteria).
Model QCDFR (Qualty, Cost, Delivery, Flexibility, Responsiveness) digunakan sebagai
kerangka acuan dalam merancang SESS. Perancangan SESS dengan kerangka acuan model
QCDFR didasarkan pada langkah-langkah penetapan kriteria, penetapan indiaktor kinerja
supplier dari tiap kriteria, penetapan bobot kriteria dan indikator, pembuatan lembar kerja
dan pelaporan evaluasi dan seleksi supplier. Hasil rancangan dengan menggunakan model
QCDFR menghasilkan 7 Supplier Performance Indikator (SPI). Lembar kerja yang terbentuk
sangat mudah digunakan untuk evaluasi dan seleksi supplier. Dari lembar kerja tersebut
diperoleh hasil bahwa CV. Y memiliki kinerja terbaik.
Kata Kunci : Multi kriteria, QCDFR, Supplier

Pendahuluan
Supply chain Management (SCM) adalah sebuah pendekatan untuk integrasi
yang effisien antara pemasok (Supplier), pabrik (manufactur), pusat distribusi,
wholesaler, pengecer (retailer) dan konsumen akhir,dimana produk diproduksi dan
didistribusikan dalam jumlah yang benar/tepat, lokasi yang tepat dan waktu yang
tepat dalam rangka meminimalkan sistem biaya dan meningkatkan tingkat kepuasan
pelayanan.
Dalam konsep supply chain , supplier merupakan salah satu bagian supply chain
yang sangat penting dan berpengaruh terhadap kelangsungan hidup suatu pabrik.
Pabrik sebagai sistem yang menjalankan kegiatan produksi pastilah membutuhkan
bahan baku (raw material) yang tentunya didatangkan dari supplier. Apabila supplier
kurang bertanggungjawab dan respon terhadap pemenuhan permintaan maka akan
menimbulkan masalah antara lain terjadinya stockout dan lamanya lead time. Oleh
karena itu, perusahaan yang memiliki banyak alternatif supplier harus selektif dalam
113
114
memilih suppiler. Untuk mendapatkan supplier yang selektif diperlukan suatu Sistem
Evalusi dan Seleksi Supplier (SESS) yang baik dan objektif.
Pada penelitian ini, pihak perusahaan memiliki sistem evalusi dan seleksi
supplier sebelumnya yang hanya menekankan pada aspek/kriteria biaya (cost) dan
ditambah penilian lain yang sifatnya subjektif. Sistem ini tentunya tidak
menguntungkan perusahaan, karena kriteria yang digunakan dalan evalausi dan seleksi
supplier hanya cost saja dan bersifat objektif, sedangkan kriteria yang non cost (non
finansial) sangat mempengaruhi penilaian dan dapat digunakan untuk menilai kinerja
suatu supplier. Oleh karena itu, pada penelitian ini, peneliti mencoba untuk merancang
Sistem Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier dengan multi kriteria.

Perumusan Masalah
Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti mencoba untuk merumuskan masalah sebagai
berikut : “Bagaimana merancang sistem evaluasi dan seleksi supplier perusahaan
dengan multi kriteria?”

Tujuan Penelitian
1. Menentukan kriteria-kriteria evaluasi dan seleksi supplier.
2. Mengetahui bobot (derajat kepentingan) dari masing-masing kriteria untuk
menentukan kriteria mana yang memiliki bobot tertitnggi dan terendah.
3. Menentukan indikator kinerja supplier dari masing-masing kriteria beserta
formulanya.
4. Mengetahui bobot (derajat kepentingan) dari masing-masing indikator kinerja
supplier.
5. Membuat cara evaluasi dan seleksi supplier yang sistematis dan mudah digunakan.

Manfaat Penelitian
1. Terbentuknya Sistem Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier (SESS) yang objektif dan
handal bagi perusahaan sehingga kinerja supplier dapat di monitor dan dievaluasi
tiap periode tertentu.
2. Sebagai masukan untuk meningkatkan kinerja dan produktivitas perusahaan
secara berkelanjutan dalam aspek input (supplier).
3. Menerapkan konsep multi kriteria (finansialn dan non finansial) dalam penilaian
supplier.

Metodologi Penelitian
Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara-cara berikut:
1. Observasi, yaitu pengamatan langsung ke perusahaan, hal ini untuk mengetahui
data-data yang diperlukan
2. Angket, digunakan untuk mengetahui nilai bobot
3. Studi literatur, yaitu dengan mempelajari dan memahami masalah evaluasi dan
penilaian supplier.
Data yang diperoleh diolah dengan menggunakan metode Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) dalam hal ini dengan bantuan software program Expert Choise.
Mauizhoh & Zabidi – Perancangan Sistem Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier …
 115
Dengan AHP dapat diketahui bobot dari masing-masing kriteria dan indikator kinerja
supplier sehingga pada akhirnya dapat digunakan untuk menyeleksi dan mengevaluasi
supplier sehingga dapat diketahui supplier yang terpilih. Metode perancangan Sistem
Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier menggunakan multi kriteria QCDFR. Analisis yang
akan digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah dengan analisis kualitatif dan analisis
kuantitatif, tetapi dengan penekanan pada analisis kuantitatif. Sedangkan analisis
kualitatif hanya sebagai pendukung untuk suatu kesimpulan yang diambil.
Adapun alur langkah penelitian seperti terdapat pada gambar 1.

Penelitian Awal
Pengamatan Sistem
evaluasi yang ada di Studi Pustaka
perusahaan

Perumusan masalah dan tujuan penelitian

Perancangan Sistem Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier

Penetapan Kriteria-Kriteria
- Model QCDFR

Penetapan Indikator Kinerja Supplier

Penetapan bobot `kriteria dan indikator (AHP)

• Pembuatan Cara Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier

• Pembuatan Bentuk Pelaporan

Analisis Sistem valuasi dan Seleksi Supplier

Kesimpulan dan Saran

Gambar 1. Bagan Alir Penelitian

Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri Vol. 5 No. 3 April 2007, hal 113 - 122
116
Hasil Penelitian
Penetapan Kriteria Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier
Kriteria evaluasi dan seleksi supplier yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini
adalah multi kriteria (finansial dan non finansial) yang mengacu pada model QCDFR,
dimana terdapat lima kriteria yaitu : quality, cost, delivery, flexibility, responsiveness.
1. Quality. Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi kualitas terhadap produk yang
dihasilkan oleh supplier. Bahan baku (raw materials) merupakan salah satu input
bagi perusahaan manufaktur (pabrik) yang mutlak dibutuhkan. Bagi sebuah
pabrik yang tidak membuat sendiri bahan bakunya dalam artian bahan baku
diperoleh dari pihak ketiga (supplier), maka kualitas material dari supplier harus
menjadi pengawasan yang utama demi menghasilkan produk yang bermutu.
2. Cost. Kriteria biaya material yang di pasok oleh supplier merupakan kriteria
finansial yang menjadi pertimbangan utama setiap pabrik dalam memilih
supplier.
3. Delivery. Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi pelayanan pengiriman bahan baku.
4. Flexibility. Kriteria ini menilai supplier dari segi kemampuan supplier memenuhi
permintaan terhadap perubahan jumlah dan waktu.
5. Responsiveness. Kriteria ini memilai supplier dari segi kemampuan supplier
dalam merespon problem maupun permintaan.

Penetapan Indikator Kinerja Supplier Tiap Kriteria

Indikator kinerja supplier (supplier performance indicator) dari masing-masing
kriteria QCDFR diperoleh dari studi pustaka dan brainstorming. Perusahaan yang
merupakan industri manufaktur yang berberak dalam industri pakaian jadi. Bahan
baku utama dari produk-produk tersebut adalah kain. Tabel 1 menunjukkan indikator
kinerja supplier yang berhasil diperoleh.

Tabel 1. Indikator Kinerja Supplier

No Kriteria Indikator Kinerja Supplier
1 Quality • Panjang kain yang cacat (rusak/robek,warna tidak sesuai)
2 Cost • Harga bahan baku kain.
3 Delivery • Prosentase ketepatan kuantitas kain yang dikirim
• Prosentase ketepatan waktu pengiriman
4 Flexibility • Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan jumlah kain
yang dipesan
• Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan waktu
pengiriman kain
5 Responsiveness • Prosentase supplier merespon masalah

Panjang kain yang cacat mengukur jumlah kain yang dikirim oleh supplier yang
memiliki kecacatan. Jenis cacat yang terjadi berupa kain yang robek dan warna yang
tidak sesuai. Harga bahan baku berupa harga rata-rata kain/rol (gelondong) dari
supplier.

Mauizhoh & Zabidi – Perancangan Sistem Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier …

 117
Prosentase ketepatan kuantitas kain yang dikirim (%KKK), untuk mengukur
apakah jumlah kain yang dikirim tiap frekuensi pengiriman telah sesuai dengan
jumlah yang dipesan. Indikator ini diperoleh dengan formula sebagai berikut :
n

∑ fptk i
% KKK = i =1
n
... (1)
∑ fp
i =1
i

dimana,
fptk i = jumlah frekuensi pengiriman yang tepat kualitas.
fpi = jumlah frekuensi pengiriman yang terjadi.
Prosentase ketepatan waktu pengiriman (%KWP), untuk mengukur apakah
setiap pengiriman yang dilakukan supplier tepat waktu. Formula yang digunakan
adalah sebagai berikut :
n

∑ fptw i
% KWP = i =1
n
... (2)
∑ fp
i =1
i

dimana,
fptwi = jumlah frekuensi pengiriman yang tepat waktu.
fpi = jumlah frekuensi pengiriman yang terjadi.
Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan jumlah kain yang dipesan
(%PK), untuk mengukur apakah supplier dapat memenuhi perubahan jumlah
permintaan sewaktu-waktu (jumlah pesanan berubah mendadak). Formula yang
digunakan adalah sebagai berikut :
n

∑ fppkt i
% PK = i =1
n
... (3)
∑ fpk
i =1
i

dimana,
fppkt i = frekuensi pengiriman dengan perubahan permintaan yg terpenuhi
fpk i = frekuensi terjadinya perubahan jumlah permintaan
Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan waktu pengiriman (%PW), untuk
mengukur apakah supplier dapat memenuhi permintaan jika waktu pengiriman
berubah (waktu pengiriman berubah mendadak). Formula yang digunakan adalah
sebagai berikut :

Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri Vol. 5 No. 3 April 2007, hal 113 - 122
118
n

∑ fppwt i
% PW = i =1
n
... (4)
∑ fpw
i =1
i

dimana,
fppwt i = frekuensi pengiriman dengan perubahan waktu dapat terpenuhi
fpk i = frekuensi terjadinya perubahan waktu pengiriman
Prosentase supplier merespon masalah (%SMM), untuk mengukur apakah
supplier dapat merespon dengan cepat jika terjadi problem. Formula yang digunakan
adalah sebagai berikut :
n

∑ prc i
% SMM = i =1
n
... (5)
∑p
i =1
i

dimana,
prci = problem yang dapat direspon cepat
pi = problem yang terjadi

Penetapan Bobot Kriteria dan Indikator

Penetapan bobot untuk masing-masing kriteria dan indiaktor kinerja supplier
adalah dengan menggunakan Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Dari hasil AHP
diperoleh bobot untuk tiap kriteria dan indiaktor kinerja, seperti tertuang dalam tabel 2
dan tabel 3.

Tabel 2. Bobot Kriteria

No Kriteria Bobot
1 Quality 0,472
2 Cost 0,196
3 Delivery 0,155
4 Flexibility 0,098
5 Responsiveness 0,079

Lembar Kerja Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier

Pada dasarnya cara evaluasi dan seleksi supplier adalah dengan
membandingkan indikator kinerja pencapaian dengan target yang ditentukan oleh
perusahaan. Pada bagian ini akan dibuat sebuah lembar kerja (software) untuk
memberi penilaian dan evaluasi terhadap supplier. Lembar kerja ini dibuat dengan
menggunakan fasilitas-fasilitas yang ada di program Microsoft Excel.
Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti mencoba memberikan contoh evaluasi dan seleksi
supplier untuk bahan baku kain. Supplier yang biasa memasok bahan baku tersebut
ada tiga supplier, yaitu CV. X, CV. Y dan CV. Z. Dengan lembar kerja yang dibuat,
Mauizhoh & Zabidi – Perancangan Sistem Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier …
 119
akan diketahui kinerja dari masing-masing supplier sehingga dapat memberikan
gambaran mengenai supplier yang memiliki kinerja yang baik. Contoh hasil evaluasi
dan seleksi supplier seperti pada tabel 4.

Tabel 3. Bobot Indikator Kinerja Supplier

No Kriteria Bobot
1 Panjang kain yang cacat 0.472
2 Harga bahan baku. 0,196
3 Prosentase ketepatan kuantitas kain yang dikirim 0,077
4 Prosentase ketepatan waktu pengiriman 0,078
5 Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan jumlah kain yang 0,049
dipesan
6 Prosentase dipenuhinya permintaan perubahan waktu pengiriman 0,049
kain
7 Prosentase supplier merespon masalah 0,079

Tabel 4. Contoh data realisasi dan target untuk 3 supplier

No Kriteria Indikator Kinerja CV. X CV. Y CV. Z
Supplier Aktual Target Aktual Target Aktual Target
1 Quality Panjang kain cacat 40 60 37 60 55 60
2 Cost Harga bahan baku/rol 650.000 700.000 670.000 700.000 625.000 700.000
(Rp)
3 Delivery Prosentase ketepatan 94% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100%
kuantitas kain yang
dikirim
Prosentase ketepatan 97% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100%
waktu pengiriman
4 Flexibility Prosentase dipenuhinya 57% 50% 60% 50% 50% 50%
permintaan perubahan
jumlah kain yang dipesan
Prosentase dipenuhinya 67% 50% 100% 50% 67% 50%
permintaan perubahan
waktu pengiriman kain
5 Responsive- Prosentase supplier 75% 100% 80% 100% 67% 100%
ness merespon masalah

Tabel 5. Skor Kinerja Kriteria (% pencapaian terhadap target)

untuk 3 supplier
No Kriteria Bobot CV. X CV. Y CV. Z Keterangan
1 Quality 0.472 150% 162% 109% High is better
2 Cost 0.196 108% 104% 112% High is better
3 Delivery 0.155 96% 88% 100% High is better
4 Flexibility 0.098 124% 160% 117% High is better
5 Responsiveness 0.079 75% 80% 67% High is better

Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri Vol. 5 No. 3 April 2007, hal 113 - 122
120
Tabel 6. Skor Kinerja Keseluruhan untuk 3 Supplier
Supplier Skor Keseluruhan
CV. X 125%
CV. Y 133%
CV. Z 106%

Bentuk Pelaporan Hasil Evaluasi dan Seleksi Supplier

Pada bagian ini, penulis membuat bentuk pelaporan kinerja berupa homepage
yang tentunya dapat diakses oleh orang-orang yang berkepentingan melalui sebuah
jaringan intranet di lingkungan perusahaan. Adapun tujuan pembuatan pelaporan
dalam bentuk homepage adalah :
1. Pelaporan kinerja mudah diakses oleh seluruh unit kerja yang diberi wewenang.
2. Pelaporan evaluasi dan seleksi supplier dapat dilihat kapanpun selama jam kerja.
3. Dapat memberikan informasi-informasi yang terkini
4. Memudahkan dalam pengambilan keputusan
5. Mempercepat proses pengambilan kebijakan
6. Menciptakan program paper less (mengurangi penggunaan kertas)
Adapun tampilan muka untuk bentuk pelaporan berbasis website, dapat dilihat
pada Gambar 2.

KESIMPULAN
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, maka penulis mencoba untuk menarik kesimpulan
sebagai berikut:
1. Hasil rancangan dengan menggunakan model Quality, Cost, Delivery, Flexibility,
Responsiveness (QCDFR) menghasilkan 7 Supplier Performance Indikator (SPI)
yaitu : satu indikator untuk kriteria quality, satu indikator untuk kriteria cost, dua
inditator untuk kriteria delivery, dua indikator untuk kriteria flexibility dan satu
indikator untuk kriteria responsiveness.
2. Kriteria quality memiliki bobot yang tertinggi sebesar 0,472 selanjutnya diikuti
oleh kriteria cost sebesar 0,196 , kriteria delivery sebesar 0,155, kriteria flexibility
sebesar 0,098 dan kriteria responsiveness sebesar 0,079.

Mauizhoh & Zabidi – Perancangan Sistem Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier …

 121

Gambar 2. Bentuk Pelaporan berbasis website

3. Dari ke- 7 indikator kinerja, indikator kinerja kesatu memiliki bobot sebesar
0,472, indikator kinerja kedua sebesar 0,196, indikator kinerja ketiga sebesar
0,077, indikator kinerja keempat sebesar 0,078, indikator kinerja kelima sebesar
0,049, indikator kinerja keenam sebesar 0,049 dan indikator kinerja ketujuh
sebesar 0,079.
4. Lembar kerja yang terbentuk sangat mudah digunakan untuk evaluasi dan seleksi
supplier. Dari lembar kerja tersebut diperoleh hasil bahwa CV. Y memiliki kinerja
terbaik.

Daftar Pustaka
...., 1995. Expert Choice Decision Support Software Version 9.0, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA, 1983-1995
Saaty, T.L. 1988. Multicriteria Decision Making : The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1988,
British Library , USA.
New, S. J. 1997. The scope of supply chain management research. Supply Chain Management
Volume 2 Number 1 pp. 15–22 © MCB University Press · ISSN 1359-8546.
Blatherwick, A. 1998. Vendor-managed inventory: fashion fad or important supply chain
strategy? Supply Chain Management Volume 3 Number 1 pp. 10–11 © MCB
University Press · ISSN 1359-8546
Cox, A. 1999. Power, value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal. Volume 4 Number 4 pp. 167-175 © MCB University Press .
ISSN 1359-8546

Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri Vol. 5 No. 3 April 2007, hal 113 - 122
122
Liu, J. 2000. Using Data envelopment analysis to cpmpare suppliers for supplier selection and
performance improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 5 Number 3 pp. 143 - 150 © MCB University Press . ISSN 1359-8546
Phipil, D. S. 2000. Edith, Designing and Managing The Supply Chain, McGraw-Hill
Miller, A. 1998. Strategic Management. 3rd edition, Irwin McGraw Hill, USA.
Ronald, H. 1992. Business Logistics Management. Prentice Hall.
http//www.mdm.com
http//www.supplychain.com
http//www.supplychainmanagement.com

Mauizhoh & Zabidi – Perancangan Sistem Penilaian dan Seleksi Supplier …