Supplier Evaluation And Selection In Automotive Industry

University of Texas at El PasoDigitalCommons@UTEP

Open Access Theses & Dissertations

2017-01-01

Supplier Evaluation And Selection In AutomotiveIndustry Using Conditional ProbabilityAnand RajUniversity of Texas at El Paso, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etdPart of the Industrial Engineering Commons

This is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Theses & Dissertationsby an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationRaj, Anand, "Supplier Evaluation And Selection In Automotive Industry Using Conditional Probability" (2017). Open Access Theses &Dissertations. 529.https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/529

https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.utep.edu%2Fopen_etd%2F529&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd?utm_source=digitalcommons.utep.edu%2Fopen_etd%2F529&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd?utm_source=digitalcommons.utep.edu%2Fopen_etd%2F529&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/307?utm_source=digitalcommons.utep.edu%2Fopen_etd%2F529&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/529?utm_source=digitalcommons.utep.edu%2Fopen_etd%2F529&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

SUPPLIER EVALUATION AND SELECTION IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY

ANAND RAJ

Master’s Program in Industrial Engineering

APPROVED:

Tzu-Liang (Bill) Tseng, Ph.D., Chair

Jianguo Wu, Ph.D., Co-Chair

Eric D. Smith, Ph.D.

Charles H. Ambler, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School

ii

SUPPLIER EVALUATION AND SELECTION IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

USING CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY

by

Anand Raj, MBA

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at El Paso

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Industrial, Manufacturing and Systems Engineering

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO

August 2017

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to people who have helped me, encouraged

me, or in some or the other way contributed to my work.

First, I would like to thank my advisor and thesis committee chain Dr. Bill Tseng for his

continuous support and guidance. He always gave me flexibility in my work and had confidence

on me. I would also like to thank Dr. Eric Smith and Dr. Jianguo Wu for their time and

suggestion.

Also, I will like to thank Ms. Yuxin Wen for her significant help and contribution in my

thesis.

My heartily appreciation to the faculty and staff of Industrial, Manufacturing and

Systems Engineering Department for making my stay extremely enjoyable and full of learning.

Finally, I must thank my parents and my relatives for their blessings, love and constant

encouragement throughout my master’s program. Also, I would like to thank all my friends and

family members who constantly supported and motivated me all the time.

iv

ABSTRACT

Supplier evaluation and selection is one very important factor for the success of a

company. There are many supplier evaluation and selection tools and software available in the

market. But this approach is different from the others. Here a comprehensive list of suppliers

selection criteria is selected and they are divided in 3 supplier selection group. This group of

criteria is done based on the relationship among them. All the suppliers are evaluated based on

these 3 supplier selection group. The supplier with the highest value is selected. The probability

associated with that factor is assigned and at the end overall probability of selecting any specific

supplier is calculated. To calculate the overall probability conditional probability is used. This

probability calculated tells us which supplier to go for in the pool of suppliers. The higher the

probability the better the chances of getting the supplier selected and less risk involved in going

with that supplier. This is a cost effective and simple way of supplier selection which can be used

by any company, especially by a small size company or a company with low budget only with

the help of historical data and market feedback. The purchasing company only need to have team

of experts who can figure out the important supplier selection parameters and assign probabilities

to those parameters. To the future enhancement to this method, more criteria can be added for

supplier selection and evaluation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................2

1.3 Research Goal ..........................................................................................................3

1.4 Research Objective ..................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................4

2.1 Supply Chain............................................................................................................4

2.2 Supplier Evaluation and Selection- Importance ......................................................6

2.3 Relationship Between Supplier and Buyer ..............................................................7

2.4 Supplier Selection Criteria .....................................................................................10

2.5 Supplier Selection Methods ...................................................................................17

2.6 Overview of Automobile Industry .........................................................................23

vi

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................25

3.1 General Approach ..................................................................................................25

3.1.1 Bayesian Network ......................................................................................25

3.1.2 Conditional Probability ..............................................................................28

3.1.3 Scoring Function ........................................................................................29

3.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................30

3.3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................82

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK ...............................................................86

LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................88

CURRICULUM VITA ..................................................................................................................95

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Reduction in the Number of Suppliers ......................................................................... 10

Table 2.2 Dickson’s supplier selection criteria ............................................................................. 11

Table 2.3 Supplier Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 13

Table 2.4 Methodologies and selection factors............................................................................. 18

Table 2.5 Comparison among methodologies .............................................................................. 21

Table 3.1 Supplier selection criteria ............................................................................................. 31

Table 3.2 Supplier 1-Supplier selection group 1 .......................................................................... 46








Table 3.10 Supplier 3-Supplier selection group 3 ........................................................................ 55








viii












Table 3.29 Supplier 10-Supplier selection group 1 ...................................................................... 78



Table 4.1 Calculated value............................................................................................................ 82

Table 4.2 Average value ............................................................................................................... 83

Table 4.3 Supplier Ranking .......................................................................................................... 84

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 A directed acyclic graph (DAG).................................................................................. 26

Figure 3.2 An example of BN with five nodes ............................................................................. 27

Figure 3.4 Wymore standard scoring function (Monotonic Decreasing) ..................................... 30

Figure 3.5 General network for evaluating the selection of a supplier ......................................... 37

Figure 3.6 Framework for supplier selection group 1................................................................... 39

Figure 3.8 Framework for supplier selection group 3................................................................... 44

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

In current scenario, the business all over the world has become very competitive. In such

a challenging and competitive environment, every company is trying to position themselves in

the global market. If we look at the previous years we find that companies have been trying to

formulate strategies in every field of operation to cut cost and remain in the position to sustain

and grow in the business. With the same line of thinking they are trying to improve their business

strategies [2] considering supply chain management as a key element towards the growth.

There have been several definitions of supply chain. By extension a supply chain can be

defined as a network of operations and organizations through which specific processes add value

to products and to services. Supply chain exists in both manufacturing and services

organizations. The variation in the complexity of the supply chain varies from one industry to the

other and from one firm to the other [3].

According to [4] “all customer interactions, from order entry through paid invoice; all

product (physical material or service) transactions, from supplier’s supplier to customer’s

customer; and all market interactions, from the understanding of aggregate demand to the

fulfillment of each other.” Ref [5], several terms have been used synonymously with supply

chain management (SCM) including, procurement reengineering, supplier relationship initiative

and strategic supply side management.

For most of the firms having a good and effective supply chain is crucial. Most of the

companies are now focusing only on their core competencies so that they can retain and then

strengthen their presence in the market. For that purpose, the companies have moved away from

vertical integration and have downsized themselves to concentrate on their main business. This

2

has led to extensive outsourcing [7]. With so much of outsourcing taking place, it is important

for the companies to focus on their decision-making process which takes into consideration

supplier selection.

In a competitive market environment, the selection of supplier is an important decision-

making problem for a successful firm [8] [9]. Every company has a certain set of criteria while

evaluating a supplier from a pool of suppliers. This step is crucial because it is very important for

the company to make sure if the suppliers will stand strong on the various criteria. The final goal

is to find the best supplier. Once a supplier is selected it must follow several parameters while

manufacturing the product.

Since supplier selection is such an intensive process, it is not wise to switch suppliers

frequently and it becomes important for the business to have a long-term relationship with the

suppliers. This provides stability to the business and provides opportunity to the company to

focus on their core business.

1.2 Problem Statement

In recent times with so many suppliers available it has become very difficult to choose a

specific supplier. Now a day the firms do not go only with the least price quoted by the suppliers

but they look at many other key factors and the relationship between those factors. Keeping those

factors in mind and their relationship among each other it becomes important to choose the best

supplier from the pool of suppliers. This is done to minimize the risk associated with the selected

supplier.

3

1.3 Research Goal

To choose the best supplier among the set of different suppliers who can be most reliable

and has least risk involved.

1.4 Research Objective

With such a large complexity occurring in every field of supply chain in the firms, it

becomes important for the firms to focus on how and where to reduce the risk. One crucial factor

where the firms need to be very careful are the supplier selection. This will provide overall

competitive advantage to the firm in the market. This is because the firms want to have

• long term relationship with the suppliers.

• a supplier who is consistent with the factors considered while selecting the

supplier.

• a supplier who has least risk involved while doing business.

• maximum overall value from the supplier.

To find the supplier who is the best among other suppliers in the pool with minimal risk

involved. This will help the company to have a long-term relationship with the supplier and

provide the maximum overall value to the manufacturer.

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In today’s competitive market the companies are looking for newer ways and means to

have a competitive edge over others in the business. Supply Chain has come as a strategic move

to move ahead of others. It is so complex that most of the firms manage their supply chain as a

separate department. Hence managing the supply chain is called supply chain management. Ref

[2], supply chain management is considered as one of the best means to achieve competitive

advantage in the market. Supply chain management was introduced in the business in 1980s and

slowly gained popularity and attention [10]. With advancement in supply chain management

companies are relying more on out sourcing as a tool to progress in the business [11].

2.1 Supply Chain

As said by [64] supply chain can be described as a network that links various agents,

from the customer to the supplier, through manufacturing and services so that the flow of

materials, money and information can be effectively managed to meet the business requirements.

Supply chain can vary in complexity but typically the raw materials are purchased from different

places and they are shipped to the factories for manufacture. Those parts are shipped to the

assembler where they are assembled before moving to the warehouse for storage. After that the

manufactured parts are transported to the distributers, retailers and finally to the customers.

There is flow of information and material between the two sides. The transportation of material

takes place by land, sea and air.

5

Figure 2.1 Supply Chain Model [57]

The above figure explains the conventional supply chain model [12]. As per Supply-

Chain Council “all customer interactions, from order entry through paid invoices; all product

(physical, material or service) transactions, from supplier’s supplier to customer’s customer; and

all market interactions, from the understanding of aggregate demand to fulfillment of each order”

[4].

Managing the whole supply chain is a complex thing, so a separate management system

is developed to manage the whole supply chain which is known as Supply Chain Management

(SCM). SCM is involved in managing the business and relationship with every entity of the

supply chain which includes vendors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, customers, third

6

party logistics providers etc. The overall aim is to provide the customer with the right product at

the right price at the right place and at the right time at the most competitive price.

2.2 Supplier Evaluation and Selection- Importance

In the supply chain, each activity is associated with the movement and transformation of

raw materials to finished goods. The raw materials move from the primary suppliers to the

manufacturer through the distributor, retailor ending lastly to the customer [13]. For company

that spend a large portion of their revenue on their equipment and raw materials, savings from

their supplier is very important. So, it is important to manage their resources wisely.

In most of the companies, cost of the raw material is the major cost associated with the

product [14]. Approximately 85% of the companies outsource some of their practices [15]. It has

been observed that different industries spend different amount of their sales revenue on

purchasing of their raw material. Ref. [16] this value ranges from 25% to 80% depending upon

different industries.

Since the companies are extensively outsourcing, all the decisions related to purchasing

becomes very important. An effective and efficient purchasing function is essential for a

successful supply chain [17] [18]. A supplier who is selected should be responsible and capable

of providing the necessary and required materials at the right price. He should also be ready with

the appropriate quantity. Ref. [19] [20] considers supplier selection as the main task of

purchasing and vendor selection to be one of the most important and crucial work of any

purchasing department of a company. Every company wants to have a long-term relationship

from any supplier. This provides the firm with competitive positioning and supports the long-

term strategy. Ref. [21] concluded that purchasing process holds a key role in corporate strategic

success through the selection and development of suppliers.

7

It has been seen that external suppliers have a major influence in the success or failure of

a company as a large chunk of revenue goes towards the purchase of any product [22]. Ref. [23]

points out that for any company, their purchasing department can be very powerful in cost

reduction. In several studies, it has been found that manufacturers from Japan are successful in

cost reduction because they have developed strategic partnership with their suppliers [24].

From the above literature, we find that for any company supplier evaluation and selection

is the key to success and all the authors mentioned above agree to it. It is one of a crucial activity

for the company to maintain its stand in the competitive business environment. Ref. [25] says

that a right supplier can significantly reduce cost and increase market competitiveness and

because of that reason it is the most important activity of any purchasing department [26].

On the other hand, if a company goes with a wrong supplier it gets a hit in terms of

operational and financial problem [27]. Also, a bad decision in terms of supplier selection has

several direct and indirect consequences on the company [29].

2.3 Relationship Between Supplier and Buyer

It has often been found that in a competitive environment and changing market it is not

possible for a company to react alone but it needs help and support from its suppliers Ref. [30]

[31] said that any organization cannot meet these challenges alone but it needs the support and

coordination from different organizations. There is a need of critical interdependencies and

relationship among each other. The healthy relationship between any two companies can only be

established on win-win relationship between each other [26]. For instance, a buyer gets a good

quality product at a lower cost whereas the supplier gets a repetitive order from the same buyer.

However, there is no guarantee from each other that they will fulfil each other expectations. The

good relationship can be effected if the requirement from the buyer changes and the seller is no

8

longer able to fulfil the order. Also, if the low cost from the seller gets a hit because of the price

rise of the raw materials the relationship between the buyer and the supplier will not be good

[26].

If we give a closer look we find that the relationship between the industrial buyer and

supplier is of critical importance as more than half of the sales revenue from the buyer goes

towards purchasing [27]. To maintain their competence in the market the industrial organizations

must be always alert in terms of quality, lead time, product development time, product life cycle,

production cost etc. Between a buyer and a supplier there should not be any barrier in terms of

information flow and they should be in good harmony so that they can achieve mutual benefit

from each other [26].

Ref. [32] also found significant relationships between supplier selection criteria and

manufacturing performance. Ref. [33] points out that the ultimate success of a firm will depend

on its managerial ability to integrate and coordinate the intricate network of business

relationships among supply chain members. Ref. [34] has also noted a trend of cooperation via

formation of alliances and partnerships.

By the close of 1980s firms have found out that there is a need for continuous quality

improvement and cost cutting, and this focuses on the need that selected suppliers should work

together towards the common goal [35]. With the same line of approach [36] suggested that

developing relationships with suppliers will be critical for the functioning of firms. Increased

cost efficiency, increased effectiveness, enabling technologies, and increased competitiveness are

some underlying reasons that foster supplier-buyer relationship [26]. Many car manufacturers

changed their supplier relationships to a closer relationship between suppliers and buyers. This

kind of relationship is often referred to as supplier partnership. For example, Ford identified the

9

involvement of suppliers in the early product planning stage as a major success factor in a car

development project [37].

To have a harmonious relationship with the various suppliers the companies are cutting

down their list of suppliers and they are treating the remaining suppliers as their partners and in

this way, they are prioritizing the list of suppliers which are most important for them [38] [39].

The reduction of supplier base is considered as a step towards strategic purchasing and just-in-

time purchasing strategies recommend establishing long-term relationships with a reduced

number of suppliers, and this can result in many benefits [26]. Also working with less number of

suppliers make it easier to develop long term relationship with the suppliers [40].

Many organizations have tried to streamline their suppliers from which they buy. This is

done to have better and effective management of the remaining suppliers and to facilitate a sound

cooperation among them and more precisely focus on the developmental activities [41]. Ref [42]

suggest that the buyers should work with a small number of suppliers and keep the long-term

focus in the relationships.

10

Table 2.1 Reduction in the Number of Suppliers [43]

Company Number of Suppliers Percent Change

Current Previous

XEROX 500 5000 90

Motorola 3000 10000 70

Digital Equipment 3000 9000 67

General Motors 5500 10000 45

Ford Motor 1000 18000 44

Texas Instrument 14000 22000 36

Rainbird 380 520 27

Allied-Signal

Aerospace

6000 7500 20

2.4 Supplier Selection Criteria

For any company selecting a supplier is one of the most crucial and important step. This

process of supplier selection is a critical component of outsourcing because of the suppliers’

large role in the entire supply chain success. In the past suppliers were selected based on multiple

criteria which was available in the history of purchasing management [44].

There have been studies that showcase multiple criteria in selecting suppliers. One of

such set of criteria is the Dickson’s 23 criteria. The below table presents the Dickson’s supplier

selection criteria.

11

Table 2.2 Dickson’s supplier selection criteria [45]

Serial Number Factors

1 Quality

2 Delivery

3 Performance history

4 Warranties and claim policies

5 Production facilities and capacity

6 Price

7 Technical capability

8 Financial position

9 Procedural compliance

10 Communication system

11 Reputation and position in industry

12 Desire for business

13 Management and organization

14 Operating controls

15 Repair service

16 Attitude

17 Impression

18 Packaging ability

19 Labor relations record

20 Geographical location

12

21 Amount of past business

22 Training aids

23 Reciprocal arrangements

It is very important for a purchasing company to predict any kind of outsourcing issues

that can occur. As per the popular press, production outsourcing organizations faces unexpected

outsourcing issues in the long run [44]. After great success in the short run, “companies that have

been most aggressive in ridding themselves of their factories have been confronted with a host of

unpredicted problems. This wasn't supposed to happen, say analysts with Booz-Allen &

Hamilton's Global Operations Practice based in San Francisco”.

Now the question in focus for the purchasing company should be to ask the potential

operational risks associated with production outsourcing in the long run. It has been found that

the more reliable the supplier is the less negative effects are there on the production system. Thus

supplier selection is a crucial step in production outsourcing. With reliable suppliers, the chances

of production flow are high. Hence, we can say that in a company the production system is in the

hands of the suppliers. Since there is such a high level of dependency the supplier reliability is

accountable [44].

Ref. [46] re-visited the work done by Dickson and pointed out that supplier selection

decisions were complicated by the fact that various criteria must be considered [47]. During time

from 1966 and 1990 many researchers have worked on the list of suppliers selection criteria

developed by Dickson. They have found that there is a requirement to analyze other factors

which must be considered [47]. Ref [46] found out that Repair Service and Geographical

Location for supplier selection are of relative importance. Ref [48] performed similar research

13

work and collected 49 articles from 1992 to 2003 and made a review according to [46] method.

Supplier selection criteria both in Dickson’s 23 criteria and new developed ones are reviewed

and compared with [46] study [47]. The literatures show heavy emphasis on price, time

management, customer responsiveness and flexibility [47]. Ref. [32] indicated managers needed

to focus on a set of suppliers - selection criteria that could evaluate across multiple aspects

including product quality, product performance, and delivery reliability. Ref. [49] says that

flexibility and innovation are important criteria and considers them important. These researches

show that supplier selection criteria are changing over the time period and these change is

affected by political, economic, social, environments, characteristics of business etc and these

criteria are a key issue in the supplier selection process since it measures the performance of the

suppliers [47]. With so much of extensive work, the researchers found out 85 criteria which are

shown in the table in the next page.

Table 2.3 Supplier Selection Criteria [47]

Serial Number Supplier Selection Criteria

1 Quality

2 Performance History

3 Warranties and Claim Policies

4 Production Facilities and Capacity

5 Price

6 Technical Capability

7 Financial Position

8 Procedural Compliance

14

9 Communication System

10 Reputation and Position in Industry

11 Desire for Business

12 Management and Organization

13 Operating Controls

14 Repair Service

15 Attitude

16 Impression

17 Packaging Ability

18 Labor Relations Record

19 Geographical Location

20 Amount of Past Business

21 Training Aids

22 Reciprocal Arrangement

23 Maintainability

24 Reliability

25 Flexibility

26 Consistency

27 Long-Term Relationship

28 Product Development (Ability to Innovation and Co-Design)

29 Delivery

30 Logistic Cost

31 Inventory Management (Inventory Costs)

15

32 Willingness to Disclose Cost/Other Information

33 Just in Time

34 Quality Standards

35 Quality System Adequate

36 Professionalism

37 Physical Proximity

38 Legal/Contractual Terms

39 Superior Customer Service

40 Social Policies

41 Organizational Culture

42 Supplier Purchasing Strategies, Policies, and Techniques

43 Cost Reduction Activities

44 Product Volume Changes

45 Certificates of Compliance

46 Housing and Facilities

47 Manufacturing Capabilities

48 Supply Lots

49 Capacity to Meet the Demand

50 Problem Solving Capability

51 R&D and Engineering Capabilities

52 Production Capacity

53 Technological Capability

54 Response to Customer Request

16

55 E-Commerce Capability

56 Ease of Use

57 Environmentally Friendly Products

58 Product Appearance

59 Catalog Technology

60 Fright Terms

61 Trade Restrictions

62 Information Sharing

63 Negotiability

64 Customization

65 Certifications

66 Country’s Political Situation

67 Currency Exchange Situation

68 Trust

69 Responsiveness

70 Discipline

71 ISO 9000 / ISO 14000 certified

72 Waste Management

73 Product Range

74 Infrastructure

75 Layout

76 Product Line

77 Management skills

17

78 Calibration Control

79 Non-conforming material control system

80 Corrective and Preventive action system

81 Audit mechanism

82 Patent

83 Management Commitment

84 Number of Employees

85 Number of Technical Staff

2.5 Supplier Selection Methods

There are several methods that are used for supplier selection. Some of the popular

methods are TOPSIS, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, VIKOR [58]. Some of the important factors

for supplier selection which are most commonly addressed are quality, technology, value,

delivery and service [59]. As said by [60] supplier evaluation involves a multicriteria decision

making which makes use of different weights but there also exists a linear weighting method that

is a straightforward approach whereby the weight given to a criterion is multiplied by its

corresponding criterion value, and then the rating for each alternative is summed; so, the one

with the highest rating is selected. In these forms of evaluation, it is checked if suppliers can

meet the objectives such as quality, delivery, cost and continuous improvement [58].

But with the change in time and increasing competition in the market, it becomes very

important to focus on many different factors while evaluating and engaging with a supplier. This

is also important because the suppliers are available from different parts of the world where the

18

factors for evaluation cannot be fixed and they vary depending of different situation in that

country. None of the other approaches for supplier evaluation and selection consider the

relationship between the factors which in today’s world is important while evaluating and

selecting a supplier.

The table below represents methodologies and the supplier selection factors used in that

methodology

Table 2.4 Methodologies and selection factors [54]

METHODOLOGY Selection Factors

AHP c, d, f, g, k, p

AHP and Multi-objective programming b, c, d, f, n, o

Fuzzy AHP b, c, f, g, h, q, r, s

FUZZY TOPSIS a, b, c, d, j, m, t

Mixed integer programming a, b, d, f, g, k, p

Multi-objective programming, AHP, and TOPSIS a, b, c, d, e

DEA a, h, i, p

ELECTRE 3 c, h, k, l

Multi-objective nonlinear programming a, b, c, p

AHP and ANP a, b, n

Multi-objective programming a, c, d, m, p

Fuzzy multi-objective optimization a, b, d, p

Binary Integer Programming a, s

Multi-stage goal programming a, c, d, j

19

ANP p

Grey Theory a, b, c, d, j, n, p

Fuzzy c-means and VIKOR a, b, c, d, i, p, r, u, v

Empirical Analysis a, b, d, l, m, n, p, t

a- Cost

b- Quality

c- Service

d- Delivery

e- Innovation

f- Finance

g- Organization

h- Technology capability

i- Environmental management

j- Warranty

k- Managing ability

l- Enterprise environment

m- Lead time

n- Risk factor

o- Relationship

p- Capacity

q- Product life cycle cost

r- Green image

20

s- Pollution control

t- Flexibility

u- Green capability

v- Green design

The next table shows the comparison between methodology, major supplier selection

criteria, type of variable and type of uncertainty. For some of the methodology, type of

uncertainty is available for comparison.

Major selection Criteria comprises of 2 types

• Primary Criteria

• Resilience Criteria

Primary Criteria- It comprises of the common criteria which are used for supplier

selection. These criteria have been in use for decades which includes cost, quality, lead time,

service level etc. The 23 supplier selection criteria given by Dickson in 1966 is still in use and

Kotula et al. (2015) presented the supplier assessment criteria specific to industry and country.

Resilient Criteria- Resilience can be defined as an ability to withstand, adapt and recover

from disruption. Sheffi (2005) defines that in a supply chain context the resilience of a firm

within a supply chain is its inbuilt ability to maintain or recover its steady state behavior, thereby

allowing it to continue normal operations after a disruptive event. According to Vugrin et al.

(2011) the resilience capacity of a system is a function of the absorptive, adaptive, and

restorative capacities of a system. Here it clearly identifies pre-disruption and post-disruption

planning.

There are 2 types of analysis

• Qualitative

21

• Quantitative

Qualitative- This type of analysis refers to the different types of data used in a

methodology. Here the data is of subjective judgement which is based on unquantifiable

judgement.

Quantitative- This type of analysis refers to the amount of data used in the methodology.

Here the type of data is not an important factor but the focus is on the volume of data present for

the analysis.

There are 2 types of uncertainty factors

• Operational risk

• Disruptive risk

Operational risk- This type of risk refers to the inherent “every day” event that occur

within a supply chain, including uncertainty in customer demand, transportation cost, and supply

uncertainty due to operational problems such as power outages and technical equipment failures.

Disruptive risk- This type of risk refers to the major event driven disruptions, including

natural disasters, human-made accidents, or malevolent attacks. Disruption risks tend to be lower

in likelihood but higher in adverse consequences compared to operational risks.

Table 2.5 Comparison among methodologies [54]

Methodology Major Selection

Criteria

Type of Analysis Factors which are

Uncertainty

Fuzzy hierarchical

TOPSIS

Primary Qualitative

Quantitative

----

Fuzzy ELECTRE Primary Quantitative ----

22

Multi objective

programming

Primary Quantitative ----

Goal programming and

TOPSIS

Primary Qualitative

Quantitative

----

Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy

ANP

Primary Qualitative

Quantitative

----

Mixed integer

programming

Primary

Resilience

Quantitative Operational risk

Disruptive risk

ELECTRE-III and entropy

weight

Primary Quantitative ----

Data envelopment analysis Primary Quantitative ----

Goal programming Primary Quantitative ----

Fuzzy TOPSIS Primary

Resilience

Qualitative

Quantitative

----

Hesitant Fuzzy Primary Quantitative Operational risk

TOPSIS Primary Quantitative ----

Empirical analysis Primary Qualitative

Quantitative

Operational risk

Grey approach Primary Quantitative ----

Game theory Primary Quantitative ----

Risk-averse optimization Primary Quantitative Operational risk

Disruptive risk

Two-stage stochastic Primary Quantitative Operational risk

23

programming Resilience Disruptive risk

2.6 Overview of Automobile Industry

It is important to clarify that the scope of this study is limited to the automobile industry

in India. Before 1970s, the automobile industry in India had a very slow growth. After 1991,

when economic reform took place, it opened market for the global automobile players through

joint ventures. After 2000, the focus was to increase the export in the automobile industry and

change in policies helped in increasing exports. Since 2003, the automobile market has change a

lot and this happened because of: -

• More foreign players were ready to invest in Indian automobile market because

the government reduced had lesser regulations then before.

• It was easier to get car loans from the banks at reasonable rates.

The Indian automobile industry is one of the world’s fastest growing automobile

industries growing at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of approximately 17 per cent

over the last five years. The major domestic players are Tata Motors, Maruti Suzuki, Mahindra

and Mahindra, Hindustan Motors whereas the foreign players who are present are Fiat, Toyota,

Honda, General Motors, BMW, Volvo etc. [47].

The major automobile hubs in India are Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Chennai,

Bangalore, Hosur, Delhi, Gurgaon and Faridabad. Ref. [47] Indian automobile is the 11th largest

passenger car market in the world.

In 2008-09 the turnover of the Indian automobile industry was US $18 billion. With a

GDP of 8-9% over the last five years, and availability of a large pool of skilled workforce at

24

lower costs has attracted many foreign automobile manufacturers. And this led to the

development of large domestic market due to increase in income of the people [47]. With the

increase in the competition among different companies in automobile sector, this has led to

improvement in productivity by 20% per year which is one of the highest in the manufacturing

sector.

Purchasing of the raw material has become a critical business activity in automobile

industry. Goods purchased account for 80% of the cost of vehicle and automobile companies

spend several billions of dollars in a year with suppliers. This creates a large impact in

company’s process. In fact, some experts estimate that a 1%- 4% reduction in purchase costs can

add as much to profits as an 8%- 10% increase in sales [50]. Hence supplier selection becomes

most critical issue for Indian automobile manufacturer [47].

25

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methods used in conducting the study. This chapter is divided

into four parts:

General Approach

Methodology

Data Collection

Data Analysis

3.1 General Approach

The general approach talks about the concepts used in this research.

3.1.1 Bayesian Network

A Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random

variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph. It is based on Bayes’

theorem and it is powerful for handling risk assessment and decision making under uncertainty

[51]. It will be clearer from the explanation below which is given by [52] of Aalborg University

in Bayesian networks basics.

Let A be a parent of B in a causal network. Using probability calculus, it would be

natural to let P (B|A) be the strength of the link. However, if also C is a parent of B, then the two

conditional probabilities P (B|A) and P (B|C) alone do not give any clue on how the impacts

from A and B interact. They may co-operate or counteract in various ways. So, we need a

specification of P (B|A, C).

26

A Bayesian network consists of the following:

A set of variables and a set of directed edges between variables. Each variable has a finite set of

mutually exclusive states. The variables together with the directed edges form a directed acyclic

graph (DAG). To each variable A with parents B1,…,Bn is attached a conditional probability

table P (A|B1,…,Bn). Note that if A has no parent then the table reduces to unconditional

probabilities P(A)

Figure 3.1 A directed acyclic graph (DAG) [52]

Ref. [54] in an example towards Bayesian Network the full joint probability distribution

of the BN shown in Figure 3.2 can be expressed by equation 1.

A B

C

E D

F G

27

Figure 3.2 An example of BN with five nodes [54]

X1 and X2 are root nodes, X3 and X4 are intermediate nodes, and X5 is a leaf node.

P(X1) and P(X2) are priori probabilities and P(X3|X1), P(X4|X2, X3), and P(X5|X4) are

conditional probabilities. Overall probability can only be calculated if the individual probabilities

and the conditional probabilities are true i.e. 1. Overall probability can be calculated as

P(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5) = P(X1)P(X2)P(X3|X1)P(X4|X2, X3)P(X5|X4)

X1

X3

X4

X5

X2

28

3.1.2 Conditional Probability

Conditional probability is defined as a measure of the probability of occurrence of an

event where it is given that (assumed, presumed or evidence) another event has occurred [62]. If

the event, which is under interest is X and event Y is known (assumed) to have occurred, “the

conditional probability of X given Y”, or “the conditional probability of X given Y”, is written as

P(X|Y). If X and Y are independent events, then the conditional probability of event Y given

event X is simply the probability of event Y, P(Y).

If events X and Y are not independent, then the probability of the intersection of X and Y is

given by P(X and Y)=P(X)P(Y|X).

P(Y|X) =P(X and Y)/P(X)

Where P(X) is greater than 0. [61]

For example

In a card game, suppose a player needs to draw two cards of the same suit in order to win.

Of the 52 cards, there are 13 cards in each suit. Suppose first the player draws a heart. Now the

player wishes to draw a second heart. Since one heart has already been chosen, there are now 12

hearts remaining in a deck of 51 cards. So the conditional probability P(Draw second heart|First

card a heart) = 12|51.

Suppose an individual applying to a college determines that he has an 80% chance of

being accepted, and he knows that dormitory housing will only be provided for 60% of all the

accepted students. The chance of the student being accepted and receiving dormitory housing is

defined by

P(Accepted and Dormitory Housing) = P(Dormitory Housing|Accepted)P(Accepted) =

(0.60)*(0.80) = 0.48.[61]

29

Another important method for calculating conditional probabilities is given by Bayes formula.

The formula is based on the expression P(Y)=P(Y|X)P(X)+(PY|X’)P(X’), which simply states

that the probability of event Y is the sum of the conditional probabilities of event Y given that

event X has or has not occurred.[61]

3.1.3 Scoring Function

The scoring function takes input data and maps them to the output score [63]. The shape

of the scoring function is determined by the type of input data. In this study, there are mostly two

categories of data. In one set of data with the increase of input value the output value increases

which is called as monotonic increase and in the other set of data with the increase in input value

the effect on output value decreases which is called as monotonic decrease.

Referring to the study, if any criteria has positive impact on the supplier selection then

with the increase in the probability of the occurrence of the criteria, it has positive impact on

supplier selection which is represented by monotonic increasing graph where as if any criteria

has negative impact on the supplier selection then with the increase in the criteria it has negative

impact on the supplier selection which is represented by monotonic decreasing.

Figure 3.3 Wymore standard scoring function (Monotonic Increasing) [63]

30

Figure 3.4 Wymore standard scoring function (Monotonic Decreasing) [63]

3.2 Methodology

In this research, several suppliers selection criteria have been considered and divided into

3 suppliers selection groups which are then used to evaluate 10 suppliers. All the suppliers are

evaluated based on all the supplier selection group criteria and ranked accordingly. Finally, an

average of all the three criteria is calculated and the one with highest value is selected. Below are

the criteria for supplier selection put in a table categorized in 3 different columns.

31

Table 3.1 Supplier selection criteria [54]

Supplier selection criteria

group 1


group 2


group 3

Completion time Capacity of supplier Technological Capability

Due date Raw Material Pricing Quality

Technical Support Transportation Relationship

After sales service Labor laws problems in the

country

Flexibility

Surplus Inventory Tornedo Payment terms

Backup Supplier Earthquake Risk in doing business

Flood Geographical location Warranty

Lead time Natural Calamities Risk Awareness

Tardiness Political instability in the

country

Research and development

Response Rate Economic instability in the

country

Innovation

Tardiness penalty cost Transportation cost Customization

Absorptive Capacity Total cost Safety

Delivery robustness Inhouse Capacity

Services Outsourcing Capacity

Weather Condition

32

The factors considered here for the research are the primary factors and the resilience

factors. A short description of the supplier criteria are as follows.

Completion time - It is the time required to complete any work which span from

conceptualization to the delivery.

Due date – It is the date on which something falls due. That means the date when final

delivery should be done.

Technical support – This is a service that is provided by the company on hardware and

software part of the product to its users.

After sales service – It is all the help and information that a company provides to

customers after they have bought a product.

Surplus inventory – Surplus inventory refers to the fact of holding more inventory in

hand to absorb a disruptive event. Although this can increase holding cost but it can help to

tackle unforeseen situation.

Backup supplier – A disrupted supplier contacts another supplier as a backup to fulfill

manufacturer’s order in case the main supplier is not able to fulfil the given order. Although the

concept of backup supplier can be considered as a form of redundancy, a common absorptive

capacity enhancement philosophy.

Flood – Flood is an overflowing of a large amount of water beyond its normal confines.

With flood, the place or area gets covered or submerged with water.

Lead time – Lead time is the time between the initiation and completion of a production

process

Tardiness – Tardiness can be defined as a fact of being late.

33

Response rate – Response rate means how fast a company respond to any unfortunate

situation. Company with better response rate can come back to the normal business in less time.

A good resilient company has better response rate.

Tardiness penalty cost – Tardiness penalty cost is the fine or penalty incurred when the

delivery is not made on tome.

Delivery robustness – The ability of the supplier to meet the predefined delivery schedule

is an frequently used criteria for supplier selection. The supplier must be in the position to

respond to customer’s order with short lead time.

Services – The supplier’s service is defined as all the activities provided by the supplier

to enhance or augment the product and have value for the buyer, thus enhancing customer

satisfaction and better relationship between supplier and manufacturer. This is a very common

criterion used in supplier selection.

Absorption capacity – Absorptive capacity is the extent to which a system can absorb

shocks from disruptive events, implying proactive planning for resilience or the development of

pre-disaster strategies that can be considered as a first line of defense.

Capacity of supplier – Capacity of a supplier means the total quantity of raw material that

a supplier can provide to the manufacturer in one order.

Raw Material Pricing – Raw material pricing means the total price of the raw material

that the manufacturer must pay towards buying the raw material that is used to manufacture the

product.

Transportation – Transportation means the mode of transporting raw material and final

product from one point to another.

34

Labor laws problems in the country – It refers to the laws dealing with employment and

wage earning of the wage-earners when the employers began to cut wages for various reasons

including increasing technology, desire for lower costs or stay in business.

Tornedo – It is a destructive vortex rotating wins having the appearance of a funnel-

shaped cloud and advancing beneath a large storm system.

Earthquake – It is a sudden and violent shaking of the ground, sometimes causing great

destruction, because of movements within the earth’s crust or volcanic action.

Geographical location – Geographical location refers to a position on the earth. An

absolute geographical location is defined by two coordinates, latitude and longitude.

Natural Calamities – It refers to the natural disaster which is a major adverse event

resulting from natural processes of the earth like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and other

geological processes.

Political instability in the country – Political instability can be defined as the propensity

of a government collapse because of any given reason.

Economic instability in the country – Economic instability refers to the economy with

fluctuations in the macroeconomy. Frequent large recessions, very high and variable inflation or

frequent financial crises are considered economic instability.

Transportation cost – Transportation cost refers to the cost incurred in logistics of the raw

material from supplier to the manufacturer and finished product from manufacturer to the

customer.

Total cost – Total cost refers to all the cost incurred in manufacturing the product. This

includes the cost from the raw material stage of production to the final product when the product

reaches the customer.

35

Technological Capability – It is the technical ability of the supplier. It can also be said

how good a supplier is in technical front. This included both the hardware and software part of

the product.

Quality – Quality can be defined as a degree of excellence of something. It is a

comparative term meaning how good a product is in comparison to the other similar product.

Relationship – Relationship refers to the connection between the supplier and the

manufacturer. The better the relationship the smother is the mutual business between them.

Flexibility – Flexibility can be defined as how much is the supplier ready and able to

change to adapt to different circumstances in doing business with the manufacturer and to its

suppliers

Payment terms – Payment terms, refers to the terms specifying the period allowed to the

buyer to pay off the amount due, and may demand cash in advance, cash on delivery, payment

within 30 days of delivery or other similar provisions.

Risk in doing business – Risk in doing business refers to any attribute, characteristics or

exposure which might put doing business with the supplier in danger.

Warranty – It refers to a written guarantee, issued to a purchaser by the manufacturer,

promising to repair or repair it if necessary within a specified period.

Research and development – It is a work directed towards the innovation, introduction,

and improvement of products and processes.

Innovation – It can be defined as an action or process of developing new idea, method or

product.

Customization – It can be defined as the action to modify something to suit an event or

task.

36

Inhouse Capacity – It refers to the capacity of the supplier to supply raw material or semi-

finished goods to the manufacturer without taking help from any other party. That means its own

capacity to supply raw material

Outsourcing capacity – It refers to the capacity where the supplier can purchase the raw

material or semi-finished goods from third party and in turn supply it to the manufacturer.

Weather Condition – The atmospheric conditions that comprise the state of the

atmosphere in terms of temperature and wind and clouds and precipitation.

Safety – It is a condition of being protected from any unlike risk or danger.

Risk awareness – It refers to the knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

In the different networks of supplier selection group we see that for the supplier selection

to be true all the factors associated to it must be true. If any of the criteria goes false then this

network will be false and supplier selection cannot be done. So, the criteria which will be

considered for different supplier selection group will be the immediate criteria associated to

supplier selection. If the criteria associated for supplier selection is favorable then we consider it

as 1 whereas if the criteria associated with supplier selection is unfavorable then we complement

it to get the true value for consideration.

37

Figure 3.5 General network for evaluating the selection of a supplier

The purchasing department of a company which comprises of the team of experts divides

the supplier selection criteria in 3 groups. Here the panel of experts divides the criteria based on

the relationship among different criteria. All the suppliers all over the globe who participates in

the supplier selection process must be evaluated based on these criteria divided in 3 groups. The

supplier who gets the overall high ranking is selected as supplier for the company. The

purchasing team collects data about these suppliers which are required for the calculation. These

records are taken from historical data, customers feedback, information available in different

public and private portals etc.

Supplier Evaluation

Primary

Criteria Resilience

Criteria

Criteria 1

Criteria n

Criteria 1

Criteria n

38

Here we see that the probability of supplier selection to be high some of the factors must

be high and some of the factors must be low. Also, we consider that probability for any criteria if

it is>=0.5, we consider it low and denote it as 0, whereas when probability of any criteria is <0.5,

we consider it high and denote it as 1.

The selection criteria and their notations for supplier selection criteria group 1

• Completion time = X1

• Due date = X2

• Technical support = X3

• After sales service = X4

• Surplus inventory = X5

• Backup supplier = X6

• Flood = X7

• Lead time = X8

• Tardiness = X9

• Response Rate= X10

• Tardiness penalty cost = X11

• Delivery robustness = X12

• Services = X13

• Absorptive Capacity = X14

39

Figure 3.6 Framework for supplier selection group 1

Supplier

Selection

Tardiness

Penalty Cost

Tardiness

Completion

Time

Due

Date

Technical

Support

After

Sales Service

Lead

Time

Delivery Robustness

Surplus Inventory

Backup

Supplier

Flood

Absorptive

Capacity

Services

Response

Rate

40

Here in this network of supplier selection group 1 the criteria to be considered for

evaluation of supplier are tardiness penalty cost, delivery robustness, services and absorptive

capacity. Since all the remaining criteria must be 1 in the equation for the supplier selection

value to be high, we are not considering it in our equation for simplicity in calculation. Let’s

denote Supplier Selection as SS and calculate the value when SS is high.

The associated equation is

P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X11, X12,X13,X14)P(X11)P(X12)P(X13)P(14)

41


• Total Capacity of supplier = X1

• Raw Material Pricing = X2

• Transportation = X3

• Labor laws problems in the country = X4

• Flood = X5

• Earthquake = X6

• Geographical location = X7

• Natural Calamities = X8

• Political instability in the country = X9

• Economic instability in the country = X10

• Transportation cost = X11

• Total cost = X12

• Inhouse capacity = X13

• Outsourcing capacity = X14

• Weather Condition = X15

42


Supplier Selection

Geographical location

Economic Instability in

the country

Earthquake

Tornadoes

Natural

Calamities

Political Instability in

the country

Labor laws problems in

the country

Transportation

Transportation Cost

Total Cost

Price of Raw

Material

Total capacity of the supplier

Inhouse capacity

Outsourcing

Capacity

Weather

Condition

43

Here in this network of supplier selection group 2, the criteria to be considered for

evaluation of supplier are total capacity of the supplier, total cost, economic instability in the

country and natural calamities. Since all the remaining criteria must be 1 in the equation for the

supplier selection value to be high, we are not considering it in our equation for simplicity in

calculation. Let’s denote Supplier Selection as SS and calculate the value when SS is high.


P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X1,X8 X10,X12)P(X1)P(X8)P(10),P(12)


• Technological Capability = X1

• Quality = X2

• Relationship = X3

• Flexibility = X4

• Payment terms = X5

• Risk in doing business = X6

• Warranty = X7

• Research and development = X8

• Innovation = X9

• Customization = X10

• Safety = X11

• Risk Awareness = X12

44


Supplier

Selection

Quality

Warranty

Research and

Development

Innovation

Customization

Payment

Terms

Flexibility

Risk in doing

business

Relationship

Technological

Capability

Risk

Awareness

Safety

45

Here in this network of supplier selection group 3, the criteria to be considered for

evaluation of supplier are customization, safety, warranty, risk in doing business and payment

terms. Since all the remaining criteria must be 1 in the equation for the supplier selection value to

be high, we are not considering it in our equation for simplicity in calculation. Let’s denote

Supplier Selection as SS and calculate the value when SS is high.


P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X5,X6,X7 X10,X11)P(X5)P(X6)P(X7)P(10)P(11)

3.3 Data Collection

In a company, the purchasing team has a panel of 5 experts. These experts have a lot of

experience and knowledge about the supplier selection. According to the need of the company

and the knowledge of the market these experts come up with the wide set of suppliers selection

criteria and group them in 3 different categories. All the 10 suppliers who participate in the

supplier evaluation are evaluated based on these 3 suppliers selection group and they are ranked

based on the evaluation. All the experts make use of the previous data available in public and

private portals. Also, the market feedback and customers review about the suppliers help the

experts in evaluating the suppliers. All the experts give an independent evaluation of all the

suppliers on the selected criteria and later these experts have a detailed discussion among

themselves regarding each criteria of every supplier and find out the final value that can be

assigned to any supplier. After that the average is found each supplier taking into consideration

all the 3 suppliers selection groups. The supplier who gets the highest ranking is selected as a

supplier for the company. All the values considered here is a probability and it ranges from 0 to

1.

46

The tables below show the data for supplier 1

Table 3.2 Supplier 1-Supplier selection group 1

P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.27 0.4 0.13 0.18 0.33 0.67

0.27 0.4 0.13 0.82 0.35 0.65

0.27 0.4 0.87 0.18 0.22 0.78

0.27 0.4 0.87 0.82 0.23 0.77

0.27 0.6 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.81

0.27 0.6 0.13 0.82 0.11 0.89

0.27 0.6 0.87 0.18 0.1 0.9

0.27 0.6 0.87 0.82 0.02 0.98

0.73 0.4 0.13 0.18 0.95 0.05

0.73 0.4 0.13 0.82 0.39 0.61

0.73 0.4 0.87 0.18 0.31 0.69

0.73 0.4 0.87 0.82 0.27 0.73

0.73 0.6 0.13 0.18 0.43 0.57

0.73 0.6 0.13 0.82 0.12 0.88

0.73 0.6 0.87 0.18 0.13 0.87

0.73 0.6 0.87 0.82 0.09 0.91

47


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.31 0.45 0.19 0.11 0.37 0.63

0.31 0.45 0.19 0.89 0.31 0.69

0.31 0.45 0.81 0.11 0.29 0.71

0.31 0.45 0.81 0.89 0.33 0.67

0.31 0.55 0.19 0.11 0.22 0.78

0.31 0.55 0.19 0.89 0.15 0.85

0.31 0.55 0.81 0.11 0.13 0.87

0.31 0.55 0.81 0.89 0.05 0.95

0.69 0.45 0.19 0.11 0.92 0.08

0.69 0.45 0.19 0.89 0.35 0.65

0.69 0.45 0.81 0.11 0.37 0.63

0.69 0.45 0.81 0.89 0.26 0.74

0.69 0.55 0.19 0.11 0.53 0.47

0.69 0.55 0.19 0.89 0.32 0.68

0.69 0.55 0.81 0.11 0.23 0.77

0.69 0.55 0.81 0.89 0.17 0.83

48


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.11 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.4 0.78 0.22

0.11 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.6 0.53 0.47

0.11 0.25 0.31 0.63 0.4 0.58 0.42

0.11 0.25 0.31 0.63 0.6 0.45 0.55

0.11 0.25 0.69 0.37 0.4 0.79 0.21

0.11 0.25 0.69 0.37 0.6 0.54 0.46

0.11 0.25 0.69 0.63 0.4 0.17 0.83

0.11 0.25 0.69 0.63 0.6 0.33 0.67

0.11 0.75 0.31 0.37 0.4 0.42 0.58

0.11 0.75 0.31 0.37 0.6 0.76 0.24

0.11 0.75 0.31 0.63 0.4 0.32 0.68

0.11 0.75 0.31 0.63 0.6 0.58 0.42

0.11 0.75 0.69 0.37 0.4 0.12 0.88

0.11 0.75 0.69 0.37 0.6 0.54 0.46

0.11 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.4 0.39 0.61

0.11 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.6 0.57 0.43

0.89 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.4 0.77 0.23

0.89 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.6 0.32 0.68

49

0.89 0.25 0.31 0.63 0.4 0.71 0.29

0.89 0.25 0.31 0.63 0.6 0.14 0.86

0.89 0.25 0.69 0.37 0.4 0.05 0.95

0.89 0.25 0.69 0.37 0.6 0.66 0.34

0.89 0.25 0.69 0.63 0.4 0.76 0.24

0.89 0.25 0.69 0.63 0.6 0.55 0.45

0.89 0.75 0.31 0.37 0.4 0.91 0.09

0.89 0.75 0.31 0.37 0.6 0.88 0.12

0.89 0.75 0.31 0.63 0.4 0.87 0.13

0.89 0.75 0.31 0.63 0.6 0.77 0.23

0.89 0.75 0.69 0.37 0.4 0.85 0.15

0.89 0.75 0.69 0.37 0.6 0.37 0.63

0.89 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.4 0.17 0.83

0.89 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.6 0.42 0.58

50



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.32 0.35 0.29 0.18 0.27 0.73

0.32 0.35 0.29 0.82 0.34 0.66

0.32 0.35 0.71 0.18 0.42 0.58

0.32 0.35 0.71 0.82 0.29 0.71

0.32 0.65 0.29 0.18 0.16 0.84

0.32 0.65 0.29 0.82 0.26 0.74

0.32 0.65 0.71 0.18 0.13 0.87

0.32 0.65 0.71 0.82 0.05 0.95

0.68 0.35 0.29 0.18 0.87 0.13

0.68 0.35 0.29 0.82 0.36 0.64

0.68 0.35 0.71 0.18 0.35 0.65

0.68 0.35 0.71 0.82 0.29 0.71

0.68 0.65 0.29 0.18 0.48 0.52

0.68 0.65 0.29 0.82 0.17 0.83

0.68 0.65 0.71 0.18 0.19 0.81

0.68 0.65 0.71 0.82 0.06 0.94

51


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.27 0.47 0.21 0.15 0.34 0.66

0.27 0.47 0.21 0.85 0.21 0.79

0.27 0.47 0.79 0.15 0.19 0.81

0.27 0.47 0.79 0.85 0.37 0.63

0.27 0.53 0.21 0.15 0.29 0.71

0.27 0.53 0.21 0.85 0.35 0.65

0.27 0.53 0.79 0.15 0.17 0.83

0.27 0.53 0.79 0.85 0.09 0.91

0.63 0.47 0.21 0.15 0.87 0.13

0.63 0.47 0.21 0.85 0.39 0.61

0.63 0.47 0.79 0.15 0.49 0.51

0.63 0.47 0.79 0.85 0.38 0.62

0.63 0.53 0.21 0.15 0.67 0.33

0.63 0.53 0.21 0.85 0.49 0.51

0.63 0.53 0.79 0.15 0.52 0.48

0.63 0.53 0.79 0.85 0.33 0.67

52


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.17 0.2 0.3 0.27 0.33 0.58 0.42

0.17 0.2 0.3 0.27 0.67 0.32 0.68

0.17 0.2 0.3 0.73 0.33 0.15 0.85

0.17 0.2 0.3 0.73 0.67 0.93 0.07

0.17 0.2 0.7 0.27 0.33 0.93 0.07

0.17 0.2 0.7 0.27 0.67 0.8 0.2

0.17 0.2 0.7 0.73 0.33 0.13 0.87

0.17 0.2 0.7 0.73 0.67 0.87 0.13

0.17 0.8 0.3 0.27 0.33 0.11 0.89

0.17 0.8 0.3 0.27 0.67 0.79 0.21

0.17 0.8 0.3 0.73 0.33 0.39 0.61

0.17 0.8 0.3 0.73 0.67 0.87 0.13

0.17 0.8 0.7 0.27 0.33 0.99 0.01

0.17 0.8 0.7 0.27 0.67 0.51 0.49

0.17 0.8 0.7 0.73 0.33 0.98 0.02

0.17 0.8 0.7 0.73 0.67 0.41 0.59

0.83 0.2 0.3 0.27 0.33 0.32 0.68

0.83 0.2 0.3 0.27 0.67 0.71 0.29

0.83 0.2 0.3 0.73 0.33 0.84 0.16

0.83 0.2 0.3 0.73 0.67 0.43 0.57

53

0.83 0.2 0.7 0.27 0.33 0.04 0.96

0.83 0.2 0.7 0.27 0.67 0.20 0.80

0.83 0.2 0.7 0.73 0.33 0.30 0.70

0.83 0.2 0.7 0.73 0.67 0.84 0.16

0.83 0.8 0.3 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.75

0.83 0.8 0.3 0.27 0.67 0.21 0.79

0.83 0.8 0.3 0.73 0.33 0.96 0.04

0.83 0.8 0.3 0.73 0.67 0.65 0.35

0.83 0.8 0.7 0.27 0.33 0.17 0.83

0.83 0.8 0.7 0.27 0.67 0.72 0.28

0.83 0.8 0.7 0.73 0.33 0.23 0.77

0.83 0.8 0.7 0.73 0.67 0.66 0.34



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.17 0.41 0.26 0.13 0.16 0.84

0.17 0.41 0.26 0.87 0.31 0.69

0.17 0.41 0.74 0.13 0.49 0.51

0.17 0.41 0.74 0.87 0.09 0.91

0.17 0.59 0.26 0.13 0.1 0.9

54

0.17 0.59 0.26 0.87 0.28 0.72

0.17 0.59 0.74 0.13 0.16 0.84

0.17 0.59 0.74 0.87 0.5 0.5

0.83 0.41 0.26 0.13 0.7 0.3

0.83 0.41 0.26 0.87 0.39 0.61

0.83 0.41 0.74 0.13 0.15 0.85

0.83 0.41 0.74 0.87 0.49 0.51

0.83 0.59 0.26 0.13 0.23 0.77

0.83 0.59 0.26 0.87 0.19 0.81

0.83 0.59 0.74 0.13 0.24 0.76

0.83 0.59 0.74 0.87 0.39 0.61


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.33 0.42 0.31 0.17 0.21 0.79

0.33 0.42 0.31 0.83 0.27 0.73

0.33 0.42 0.69 0.17 0.29 0.71

0.33 0.42 0.69 0.83 0.31 0.69

0.33 0.58 0.31 0.17 0.21 0.79

0.33 0.58 0.31 0.83 0.38 0.62

0.33 0.58 0.69 0.17 0.11 0.89

55

0.33 0.58 0.69 0.83 0.19 0.81

0.67 0.42 0.31 0.17 0.77 0.23

0.67 0.42 0.31 0.83 0.49 0.51

0.67 0.42 0.69 0.17 0.59 0.41

0.67 0.42 0.69 0.83 0.35 0.65

0.67 0.58 0.31 0.17 0.77 0.23

0.67 0.58 0.31 0.83 0.59 0.41

0.67 0.58 0.69 0.17 0.22 0.78

0.67 0.58 0.69 0.83 0.3 0.7


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.25 0.35 0.17 0.55 0.39 0.22 0.78

0.25 0.35 0.17 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.33

0.25 0.35 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.18 0.82

0.25 0.35 0.17 0.45 0.61 0.05 0.95

0.25 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.39 0.84 0.16

0.25 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.61 0.26 0.73

0.25 0.35 0.83 0.45 0.39 0.84 0.16

0.25 0.35 0.83 0.45 0.61 0.49 0.51

0.25 0.65 0.17 0.55 0.39 0.57 0.43

56

0.25 0.65 0.17 0.55 0.61 0.69 0.31

0.25 0.65 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.27 0.73

0.25 0.65 0.17 0.45 0.61 0.93 0.07

0.25 0.65 0.83 0.55 0.39 0.81 0.19

0.25 0.65 0.83 0.55 0.61 0.83 0.17

0.25 0.65 0.83 0.45 0.39 0.09 0.91

0.25 0.65 0.83 0.45 0.61 0.51 0.42

0.75 0.35 0.17 0.55 0.39 0.03 0.97

0.75 0.35 0.17 0.55 0.61 0.29 0.71

0.75 0.35 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.27 0.73

0.75 0.35 0.17 0.45 0.61 0.15 0.85

0.75 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.39 0.65 0.35

0.75 0.35 0.83 0.55 0.61 0.37 0.63

0.75 0.35 0.83 0.45 0.39 0.46 0.54

0.75 0.35 0.83 0.45 0.61 0.04 0.96

0.75 0.65 0.17 0.55 0.39 0.76 0.24

0.75 0.65 0.17 0.55 0.61 0.05 0.95

0.75 0.65 0.17 0.45 0.39 0.69 0.31

0.75 0.65 0.17 0.45 0.61 0.61 0.39

0.75 0.65 0.83 0.55 0.39 0.10 0.9

0.75 0.65 0.83 0.55 0.61 0.14 0.86

0.75 0.65 0.83 0.45 0.39 0.68 0.32

0.75 0.65 0.83 0.45 0.61 0.80 0.20

57



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.41 0.11 0.56 0.03 0.19 0.81

0.41 0.11 0.56 0.97 0.37 0.63

0.41 0.11 0.44 0.03 0.53 0.47

0.41 0.11 0.44 0.97 0.29 0.71

0.41 0.89 0.56 0.03 0.18 0.82

0.41 0.89 0.56 0.97 0.31 0.69

0.41 0.89 0.44 0.03 0.22 0.78

0.41 0.89 0.44 0.97 0.46 0.54

0.59 0.11 0.56 0.03 0.32 0.68

0.59 0.11 0.56 0.97 0.19 0.81

0.59 0.11 0.44 0.03 0.27 0.73

0.59 0.11 0.44 0.97 0.41 0.59

0.59 0.89 0.56 0.03 0.17 0.83

0.59 0.89 0.56 0.97 0.12 0.88

0.59 0.89 0.44 0.03 0.24 0.76

0.59 0.89 0.44 0.97 0.37 0.63

58


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.07 0.21 0.27 0.14 0.25 0.75

0.07 0.21 0.27 0.86 0.32 0.68

0.07 0.21 0.73 0.14 0.23 0.77

0.07 0.21 0.73 0.86 0.37 0.63

0.07 0.79 0.27 0.14 0.28 0.72

0.07 0.79 0.27 0.86 0.48 0.52

0.07 0.79 0.73 0.14 0.17 0.83

0.07 0.79 0.73 0.86 0.29 0.71

0.93 0.21 0.27 0.14 0.65 0.35

0.93 0.21 0.27 0.86 0.11 0.89

0.93 0.21 0.73 0.14 0.26 0.74

0.93 0.21 0.73 0.86 0.25 0.75

0.93 0.79 0.27 0.14 0.7 0.3

0.93 0.79 0.27 0.86 0.5 0.5

0.93 0.79 0.73 0.14 0.2 0.8

0.93 0.79 0.73 0.86 0.3 0.7

59


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.19 0.11 0.7 0.42 0.28 0.34 0.66

0.19 0.11 0.7 0.42 0.72 0.95 0.05

0.19 0.11 0.7 0.58 0.28 0.35 0.65

0.19 0.11 0.7 0.58 0.72 0.83 0.17

0.19 0.11 0.3 0.42 0.28 0.88 0.12

0.19 0.11 0.3 0.42 0.72 0.93 0.07

0.19 0.11 0.3 0.58 0.28 0.25 0.75

0.19 0.11 0.3 0.58 0.72 0.83 0.17

0.19 0.89 0.7 0.42 0.28 0.18 0.82

0.19 0.89 0.7 0.42 0.72 0.09 0.91

0.19 0.89 0.7 0.58 0.28 0.07 0.93

0.19 0.89 0.7 0.58 0.72 0.51 0.49

0.19 0.89 0.3 0.42 0.28 0.29 0.71

0.19 0.89 0.3 0.42 0.72 0.72 0.28

0.19 0.89 0.3 0.58 0.28 0.70 0.30

0.19 0.89 0.3 0.58 0.72 0.73 0.27

0.81 0.11 0.7 0.42 0.28 0.01 0.99

0.81 0.11 0.7 0.42 0.72 0.58 0.42

0.81 0.11 0.7 0.58 0.28 0.86 0.14

0.81 0.11 0.7 0.58 0.72 0.48 0.52

60

0.81 0.11 0.3 0.42 0.28 0.22 0.73

0.81 0.11 0.3 0.42 0.72 0.05 0.95

0.81 0.11 0.3 0.58 0.28 0.06 0.94

0.81 0.11 0.3 0.58 0.72 0.90 0.1

0.81 0.89 0.7 0.42 0.28 0.12 0.88

0.81 0.89 0.7 0.42 0.72 0.56 0.44

0.81 0.89 0.7 0.58 0.28 0.58 0.42

0.81 0.89 0.7 0.58 0.72 0.01 0.99

0.81 0.89 0.3 0.42 0.28 0.62 0.38

0.81 0.89 0.3 0.42 0.72 0.14 0.86

0.81 0.89 0.3 0.58 0.28 0.25 0.75

0.81 0.89 0.3 0.58 0.72 0.40 0.60



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.09 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.85

0.09 0.13 0.21 0.83 0.32 0.68

0.09 0.13 0.79 0.17 0.43 0.57

0.09 0.13 0.79 0.83 0.18 0.82

0.09 0.87 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.88

61

0.09 0.87 0.21 0.83 0.35 0.65

0.09 0.87 0.79 0.17 0.27 0.73

0.09 0.87 0.79 0.83 0.41 0.59

0.91 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.37 0.63

0.91 0.13 0.21 0.83 0.09 0.91

0.91 0.13 0.79 0.17 0.24 0.76

0.91 0.13 0.79 0.83 0.11 0.89

0.91 0.87 0.21 0.17 0.21 0.79

0.91 0.87 0.21 0.83 0.1 0.9

0.91 0.87 0.79 0.17 0.2 0.8

0.91 0.87 0.79 0.83 0.17 0.83


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.16 0.27 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.79

0.16 0.27 0.11 0.77 0.37 0.63

0.16 0.27 0.89 0.23 0.25 0.75

0.16 0.27 0.89 0.77 0.31 0.69

0.16 0.73 0.11 0.23 0.24 0.76

0.16 0.73 0.11 0.77 0.41 0.59

0.16 0.73 0.89 0.23 0.13 0.87

62

0.16 0.73 0.89 0.77 0.22 0.78

0.84 0.27 0.11 0.23 0.51 0.49

0.84 0.27 0.11 0.77 0.1 0.9

0.84 0.27 0.89 0.23 0.6 0.4

0.84 0.27 0.89 0.77 0.25 0.75

0.84 0.73 0.11 0.23 0.07 0.93

0.84 0.73 0.11 0.77 0.15 0.85

0.84 0.73 0.89 0.23 0.12 0.88

0.84 0.73 0.89 0.77 0.23 0.77


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.22 0.1 0.17 0.31 0.18 0.90 10

0.22 0.1 0.17 0.31 0.82 0.39 0.61

0.22 0.1 0.17 0.69 0.18 0.65 0.35

0.22 0.1 0.17 0.69 0.82 0.92 0.08

0.22 0.1 0.83 0.31 0.18 0.06 0.94

0.22 0.1 0.83 0.31 0.82 0.88 0.12

0.22 0.1 0.83 0.69 0.18 0.90 0.1

0.22 0.1 0.83 0.69 0.82 0.33 0.67

0.22 0.9 0.17 0.31 0.18 0.46 0.54

63

0.22 0.9 0.17 0.31 0.82 0.45 0.55

0.22 0.9 0.17 0.69 0.18 0.47 0.53

0.22 0.9 0.17 0.69 0.82 0.34 0.66

0.22 0.9 0.83 0.31 0.18 0.79 0.21

0.22 0.9 0.83 0.31 0.82 0.12 0.88

0.22 0.9 0.83 0.69 0.18 0.92 0.03

0.22 0.9 0.83 0.69 0.82 0.69 0.31

0.78 0.1 0.17 0.31 0.18 0.81 0.19

0.78 0.1 0.17 0.31 0.82 0.48 0.52

0.78 0.1 0.17 0.69 0.18 0.14 0.86

0.78 0.1 0.17 0.69 0.82 0.31 0.69

0.78 0.1 0.83 0.31 0.18 0.35 0.65

0.78 0.1 0.83 0.31 0.82 0.94 0.06

0.78 0.1 0.83 0.69 0.18 0.51 0.49

0.78 0.1 0.83 0.69 0.82 0.15 0.85

0.78 0.9 0.17 0.31 0.18 0.87 0.13

0.78 0.9 0.17 0.31 0.82 0.50 0.50

0.78 0.9 0.17 0.69 0.18 0.49 0.51

0.78 0.9 0.17 0.69 0.82 0.35 0.65

0.78 0.9 0.83 0.31 0.18 0.57 0.43

0.78 0.9 0.83 0.31 0.82 0.41 0.59

0.78 0.9 0.83 0.69 0.18 0.66 0.34

0.78 0.9 0.83 0.69 0.82 0.25 0.75

64



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.29 0.19 0.11 0.7 0.5 0.5

0.29 0.19 0.11 0.3 0.12 0.88

0.29 0.19 0.89 0.7 0.47 0.53

0.29 0.19 0.89 0.3 0.28 0.72

0.29 0.81 0.11 0.7 0.17 0.83

0.29 0.81 0.11 0.3 0.18 0.82

0.29 0.81 0.89 0.7 0.17 0.83

0.29 0.81 0.89 0.3 0.21 0.79

0.71 0.19 0.11 0.7 0.17 0.83

0.71 0.19 0.11 0.3 0.19 0.81

0.71 0.19 0.89 0.7 0.26 0.74

0.71 0.19 0.89 0.3 0.18 0.82

0.71 0.81 0.11 0.7 0.24 0.76

0.71 0.81 0.11 0.3 0.17 0.83

0.71 0.81 0.89 0.7 0.32 0.68

0.71 0.81 0.89 0.3 0.29 0.71

65


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.12 0.23 0.19 0.27 0.31 0.69

0.12 0.23 0.19 0.73 0.17 0.83

0.12 0.23 0.81 0.27 0.21 0.79

0.12 0.23 0.81 0.73 0.37 0.63

0.12 0.77 0.19 0.27 0.41 0.59

0.12 0.77 0.19 0.73 0.19 0.81

0.12 0.77 0.81 0.27 0.1 0.9

0.12 0.77 0.81 0.73 0.2 0.8

0.88 0.23 0.19 0.27 0.31 0.69

0.88 0.23 0.19 0.73 0.17 0.83

0.88 0.23 0.81 0.27 0.26 0.74

0.88 0.23 0.81 0.73 0.24 0.76

0.88 0.77 0.19 0.27 0.17 0.83

0.88 0.77 0.19 0.73 0.18 0.82

0.88 0.77 0.81 0.27 0.19 0.81

0.88 0.77 0.81 0.73 0.13 0.87

66


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.18 0.15 0.7 0.11 0.27 0.56 0.44

0.18 0.15 0.7 0.11 0.73 0.84 0.16

0.18 0.15 0.7 0.89 0.27 0.87 0.13

0.18 0.15 0.7 0.89 0.73 0.79 0.21

0.18 0.15 0.3 0.11 0.27 0.44 0.56

0.18 0.15 0.3 0.11 0.73 0.29 0.71

0.18 0.15 0.3 0.89 0.27 0.67 0.33

0.18 0.15 0.3 0.89 0.73 0.80 0.11

0.18 0.85 0.7 0.11 0.27 0.88 0.12

0.18 0.85 0.7 0.11 0.73 0.69 0.31

0.18 0.85 0.7 0.89 0.27 0.78 0.22

0.18 0.85 0.7 0.89 0.73 0.15 0.85

0.18 0.85 0.3 0.11 0.27 0.70 0.30

0.18 0.85 0.3 0.11 0.73 0.92 0.08

0.18 0.85 0.3 0.89 0.27 0.50 0.50

0.18 0.85 0.3 0.89 0.73 0.65 0.35

0.82 0.15 0.7 0.11 0.27 0.70 0.30

0.82 0.15 0.7 0.11 0.73 0.19 0.81

0.82 0.15 0.7 0.89 0.27 0.98 0.02

0.82 0.15 0.7 0.89 0.73 0.28 0.72

67

0.82 0.15 0.3 0.11 0.27 0.93 0.07

0.82 0.15 0.3 0.11 0.73 0.24 0.76

0.82 0.15 0.3 0.89 0.27 0.95 0.05

0.82 0.15 0.3 0.89 0.73 0.83 0.17

0.82 0.85 0.7 0.11 0.27 0.65 0.35

0.82 0.85 0.7 0.11 0.73 0.59 0.41

0.82 0.85 0.7 0.89 0.27 0.1 0.9

0.82 0.85 0.7 0.89 0.73 0.40 0.60

0.82 0.85 0.3 0.11 0.27 0.52 0.48

0.82 0.85 0.3 0.11 0.73 0.34 0.66

0.82 0.85 0.3 0.89 0.27 0.32 0.68

0.82 0.85 0.3 0.89 0.73 0.67 0.33



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.31 0.17 0.21 0.35 0.25 0.75

0.31 0.17 0.21 0.65 0.23 0.77

0.31 0.17 0.79 0.35 0.32 0.68

0.31 0.17 0.79 0.65 0.37 0.63

0.31 0.83 0.21 0.35 0.11 0.89

68

0.31 0.83 0.21 0.65 0.13 0.87

0.31 0.83 0.79 0.35 0.16 0.84

0.31 0.83 0.79 0.65 0.46 0.54

0.69 0.17 0.21 0.35 0.27 0.73

0.69 0.17 0.21 0.65 0.39 0.61

0.69 0.17 0.79 0.35 0.43 0.57

0.69 0.17 0.79 0.65 0.1 0.9

0.69 0.83 0.21 0.35 0.4 0.6

0.69 0.83 0.21 0.65 0.11 0.89

0.69 0.83 0.79 0.35 0.02 0.98

0.69 0.83 0.79 0.65 0.09 0.91


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.33 0.3 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.83

0.33 0.3 0.17 0.84 0.29 0.71

0.33 0.3 0.83 0.16 0.33 0.67

0.33 0.3 0.83 0.84 0.45 0.55

0.33 0.7 0.17 0.16 0.26 0.74

0.33 0.7 0.17 0.84 0.29 0.71

0.33 0.7 0.83 0.16 0.15 0.85

69

0.33 0.7 0.83 0.84 0.27 0.73

0.67 0.3 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.89

0.67 0.3 0.17 0.84 0.16 0.84

0.67 0.3 0.83 0.16 0.06 0.94

0.67 0.3 0.83 0.84 0.2 0.8

0.67 0.7 0.17 0.16 0.1 0.9

0.67 0.7 0.17 0.84 0.19 0.81

0.67 0.7 0.83 0.16 0.23 0.77

0.67 0.7 0.83 0.84 0.34 0.66


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.21 0.09 0.91

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.79 0.85 0.15

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.21 0.71 0.29

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.79 0.72 0.28

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.21 0.87 0.13

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.79 0.78 0.22

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.21 0.01 0.99

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.79 0.05 0.95

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.21 0.85 0.15

70

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.79 0.07 0.93

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.21 0.63 0.37

0.37 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.79 0.1 0.9

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.21 0.74 0.26

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.79 0.25 0.75

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.21 0.18 0.82

0.37 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.79 0.51 0.49

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.21 0.26 0.74

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.79 0.64 0.36

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.21 0.46 0.54

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.79 0.93 0.07

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.21 0.19 0.81

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.79 0.32 0.68

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.21 0.86 0.14

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.79 0.83 0.17

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.21 0.59 0.41

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.1 0.79 0.34 0.66

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.21 0.88 0.12

0.63 0.5 0.37 0.9 0.79 0.75 0.25

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.21 0.29 0.71

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.1 0.79 0.58 0.42

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.21 0.32 0.68

0.63 0.5 0.63 0.9 0.79 0.09 0.91

71



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.09 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.12 0.88

0.09 0.31 0.27 0.67 0.03 0.97

0.09 0.31 0.73 0.33 0.24 0.76

0.09 0.31 0.73 0.67 0.17 0.83

0.09 0.69 0.27 0.33 0.14 0.86

0.09 0.69 0.27 0.67 0.13 0.87

0.09 0.69 0.73 0.33 0.27 0.73

0.09 0.69 0.73 0.67 0.41 0.59

0.91 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.75

0.91 0.31 0.27 0.67 0.9 0.1

0.91 0.31 0.73 0.33 0.3 0.7

0.91 0.31 0.73 0.67 0.11 0.89

0.91 0.69 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.66

0.91 0.69 0.27 0.67 0.19 0.81

0.91 0.69 0.73 0.33 0.29 0.71

0.91 0.69 0.73 0.67 0.9 0.1

72


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.21 0.2 0.23 0.14 0.11 0.89

0.21 0.2 0.23 0.86 0.19 0.81

0.21 0.2 0.77 0.14 0.31 0.69

0.21 0.2 0.77 0.86 0.25 0.75

0.21 0.8 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.82

0.21 0.8 0.23 0.86 0.15 0.85

0.21 0.8 0.77 0.14 0.27 0.73

0.21 0.8 0.77 0.86 0.41 0.59

0.79 0.2 0.23 0.14 0.45 0.55

0.79 0.2 0.23 0.86 0.6 0.4

0.79 0.2 0.77 0.14 0.09 0.91

0.79 0.2 0.77 0.86 0.32 0.68

0.79 0.8 0.23 0.14 0.21 0.79

0.79 0.8 0.23 0.86 0.18 0.82

0.79 0.8 0.77 0.14 0.33 0.67

0.79 0.8 0.77 0.86 0.27 0.73

73


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.7 0.21 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.92 0.08

0.7 0.21 0.32 0.17 0.77 0.77 0.23

0.7 0.21 0.32 0.83 0.23 0.49 0.51

0.7 0.21 0.32 0.83 0.77 0.68 0.32

0.7 0.21 0.68 0.17 0.23 0.37 0.63

0.7 0.21 0.68 0.17 0.77 0.47 0.53

0.7 0.21 0.68 0.83 0.23 0.35 0.65

0.7 0.21 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.47 0.53

0.7 0.79 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.14 0.86

0.7 0.79 0.32 0.17 0.77 0.90 0.10

0.7 0.79 0.32 0.83 0.23 0.92 0.08

0.7 0.79 0.32 0.83 0.77 0.39 0.61

0.7 0.79 0.68 0.17 0.23 0.12 0.88

0.7 0.79 0.68 0.17 0.77 0.41 0.59

0.7 0.79 0.68 0.83 0.23 0.93 0.07

0.7 0.79 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.63 0.37

0.3 0.21 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.37 0.63

0.3 0.21 0.32 0.17 0.77 0.83 0.17

74

0.3 0.21 0.32 0.83 0.23 0.12 0.88

0.3 0.21 0.32 0.83 0.77 0.36 0.64

0.3 0.21 0.68 0.17 0.23 0.30 0.70

0.3 0.21 0.68 0.17 0.77 0.51 0.49

0.3 0.21 0.68 0.83 0.23 0.78 0.22

0.3 0.21 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.67 0.33

0.3 0.79 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.6 0.4

0.3 0.79 0.32 0.17 0.77 0.22 0.78

0.3 0.79 0.32 0.83 0.23 0.96 0.04

0.3 0.79 0.32 0.83 0.77 0.28 0.72

0.3 0.79 0.68 0.17 0.23 0.72 0.23

0.3 0.79 0.68 0.17 0.77 0.38 0.62

0.3 0.79 0.68 0.83 0.23 0.12 0.83

0.3 0.79 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.14 0.86



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.14 0.23 0.37 0.11 0.24 0.76

0.14 0.23 0.37 0.89 0.21 0.79

0.14 0.23 0.63 0.11 0.27 0.73

75

0.14 0.23 0.63 0.89 0.7 0.3

0.14 0.77 0.37 0.11 0.4 0.6

0.14 0.77 0.37 0.89 0.31 0.69

0.14 0.77 0.63 0.11 0.29 0.71

0.14 0.77 0.63 0.89 0.14 0.86

0.86 0.23 0.37 0.11 0.37 0.63

0.86 0.23 0.37 0.89 0.19 0.81

0.86 0.23 0.63 0.11 0.23 0.77

0.86 0.23 0.63 0.89 0.21 0.79

0.86 0.77 0.37 0.11 0.41 0.59

0.86 0.77 0.37 0.89 0.13 0.87

0.86 0.77 0.63 0.11 0.12 0.88

0.86 0.77 0.63 0.89 0.16 0.84


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.33 0.1 0.32 0.4 0.1 0.9

0.33 0.1 0.32 0.6 0.27 0.73

0.33 0.1 0.68 0.4 0.13 0.87

0.33 0.1 0.68 0.6 0.52 0.48

0.33 0.9 0.32 0.4 0.29 0.71

76

0.33 0.9 0.32 0.6 0.5 0.5

0.33 0.9 0.68 0.4 0.7 0.3

0.33 0.9 0.68 0.6 0.4 0.6

0.67 0.1 0.32 0.4 0.54 0.46

0.67 0.1 0.32 0.6 0.25 0.75

0.67 0.1 0.68 0.4 0.27 0.73

0.67 0.1 0.68 0.6 0.23 0.77

0.67 0.9 0.32 0.4 0.12 0.88

0.67 0.9 0.32 0.6 0.31 0.69

0.67 0.9 0.68 0.4 0.22 0.78

0.67 0.9 0.68 0.6 0.11 0.89


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.34 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.32 0.83 0.17

0.34 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.68 0.45 0.55

0.34 0.27 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.47 0.53

0.34 0.27 0.23 0.75 0.68 0.18 0.82

0.34 0.27 0.77 0.25 0.32 0.37 0.63

0.34 0.27 0.77 0.25 0.68 0.63 0.37

0.34 0.27 0.77 0.75 0.32 0.25 0.75

77

0.34 0.27 0.77 0.75 0.68 0.12 0.88

0.34 0.73 0.23 0.25 0.32 0.42 0.58

0.34 0.73 0.23 0.25 0.68 0.26 0.74

0.34 0.73 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.10 0.90

0.34 0.73 0.23 0.75 0.68 0.40 0.60

0.34 0.73 0.77 0.25 0.32 0.76 0.24

0.34 0.73 0.77 0.25 0.68 0.24 0.76

0.34 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.32 0.47 0.53

0.34 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.68 0.30 0.70

0.66 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.32 0.24 0.76

0.66 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.68 0.19 0.81

0.66 0.27 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.33 0.67

0.66 0.27 0.23 0.75 0.68 0.20 0.80

0.66 0.27 0.77 0.25 0.32 0.11 0.89

0.66 0.27 0.77 0.25 0.68 0.12 0.88

0.66 0.27 0.77 0.75 0.32 0.35 0.65

0.66 0.27 0.77 0.75 0.68 0.25 0.75

0.66 0.73 0.23 0.25 0.32 0.60 0.40

0.66 0.73 0.23 0.25 0.68 0.22 0.78

0.66 0.73 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.79 0.21

0.66 0.73 0.23 0.75 0.68 0.02 0.98

0.66 0.73 0.77 0.25 0.32 0.4 0.6

0.66 0.73 0.77 0.25 0.68 0.23 0.77

78

0.66 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.32 0.67 0.33

0.66 0.73 0.77 0.75 0.68 0.86 0.14



P(X11) P(X12) P(X13) P(X14)

P(SS)

0 1

0.27 0.12 0.3 0.15 0.14 0.86

0.27 0.12 0.3 0.85 0.22 0.78

0.27 0.12 0.7 0.15 0.49 0.51

0.27 0.12 0.7 0.85 0.72 0.28

0.27 0.88 0.3 0.15 0.46 0.54

0.27 0.88 0.3 0.85 0.42 0.58

0.27 0.88 0.7 0.15 0.26 0.74

0.27 0.88 0.7 0.85 0.17 0.83

0.73 0.12 0.3 0.15 0.27 0.73

0.73 0.12 0.3 0.85 0.39 0.61

0.73 0.12 0.7 0.15 0.2 0.8

0.73 0.12 0.7 0.85 0.12 0.88

0.73 0.88 0.3 0.15 0.14 0.86

0.73 0.88 0.3 0.85 0.31 0.69

0.73 0.88 0.7 0.15 0.21 0.79

79

0.73 0.88 0.7 0.85 0.61 0.39


P(X1) P(X8) P(X10) P(X12)

P(SS)

0 1

0.11 0.17 0.45 0.34 0.11 0.89

0.11 0.17 0.45 0.66 0.22 0.78

0.11 0.17 0.55 0.34 0.53 0.47

0.11 0.17 0.55 0.66 0.12 0.88

0.11 0.83 0.45 0.34 0.24 0.76

0.11 0.83 0.45 0.66 0.15 0.85

0.11 0.83 0.55 0.34 0.17 0.83

0.11 0.83 0.55 0.66 0.24 0.76

0.89 0.17 0.45 0.34 0.34 0.66

0.89 0.17 0.45 0.66 0.15 0.85

0.89 0.17 0.55 0.34 0.17 0.83

0.89 0.17 0.55 0.66 0.13 0.87

0.89 0.83 0.45 0.34 0.02 0.98

0.89 0.83 0.45 0.66 0.1 0.9

0.89 0.83 0.55 0.34 0.02 0.98

0.89 0.83 0.55 0.66 0.31 0.69

80


P(X5) P(X6) P(X7) P(X10) P(X11)

P(SS)

0 1

0.1 0.16 0.44 0.05 0.37 0.43 0.57

0.1 0.16 0.44 0.05 0.63 0.52 0.48

0.1 0.16 0.44 0.95 0.37 0.96 0.04

0.1 0.16 0.44 0.95 0.63 0.65 0.35

0.1 0.16 0.56 0.05 0.37 0.61 0.39

0.1 0.16 0.56 0.05 0.63 0.62 0.38

0.1 0.16 0.56 0.95 0.37 0.86 0.14

0.1 0.16 0.56 0.95 0.63 0.45 0.55

0.1 0.84 0.44 0.05 0.37 0.58 0.42

0.1 0.84 0.44 0.05 0.63 0.3 0.7

0.1 0.84 0.44 0.95 0.37 0.26 0.74

0.1 0.84 0.44 0.95 0.63 0.14 0.86

0.1 0.84 0.56 0.05 0.37 0.64 0.36

0.1 0.84 0.56 0.05 0.63 0.01 0.99

0.1 0.84 0.56 0.95 0.37 0.40 0.60

0.1 0.84 0.56 0.95 0.63 0.23 0.77

0.9 0.16 0.44 0.05 0.37 0.31 0.69

0.9 0.16 0.44 0.05 0.63 0.06 0.94

0.9 0.16 0.44 0.95 0.37 0.88 0.12

0.9 0.16 0.44 0.95 0.63 0.09 0.91

81

0.9 0.16 0.56 0.05 0.37 0.98 0.02

0.9 0.16 0.56 0.05 0.63 0.51 0.49

0.9 0.16 0.56 0.95 0.37 0.32 0.63

0.9 0.16 0.56 0.95 0.63 0.11 0.89

0.9 0.84 0.44 0.05 0.37 0.75 0.25

0.9 0.84 0.44 0.05 0.63 0.09 0.91

0.9 0.84 0.44 0.95 0.37 0.04 0.96

0.9 0.84 0.44 0.95 0.63 0.49 0.51

0.9 0.84 0.56 0.05 0.37 0.10 0.90

0.9 0.84 0.56 0.05 0.63 0.50 0.50

0.9 0.84 0.56 0.95 0.37 0.02 0.98

0.9 0.84 0.56 0.95 0.63 0.83 0.17

82

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the previous chapter we saw three different suppliers selection groups which consists

of different supplier selection criteria and 10 suppliers are evaluated across all the 3 suppliers

selection group. After the data is collected it is put in the respective equations for calculation and

the values for each supplier for each supplier selection group is calculated and tabulated for

analysis.

The equations are

For Supplier Selection Group 1

P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X11, X12,X13,X14)P(X11)P(X12)P(X13)P(14)


P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X1,X8 X10,X12)P(X1)P(X8)P(10),P(12)


P(SS=1) = P(SS=1|X5,X6,X7 X10,X11)P(X5)P(X6)P(X7)P(10)P(11)

Table 4.1 Calculated value

Supplier Selection Group

1 2 3

Supplier 1 0.83 0.77 0.47

Supplier 2 0.8 0.58 0.44

Supplier 3 0.64 0.64 0.56

Supplier 4 0.71 0.67 0.66

Supplier 5 0.82 0.77 0.59

83

Supplier 6 0.74 0.83 0.56

Supplier 7 0.82 0.73 0.5

Supplier 8 0.53 0.72 0.56

Supplier 9 0.81 0.72 0.57

Supplier 10 0.6 0.84 0.6

Then the average across all the 3 suppliers selection group is calculated for each

supplier.

Table 4.2 Average value

Supplier Section Group

Average

Supplier 1 0.69

Supplier 2 0.6

Supplier 3 0.61

Supplier 4 0.68

Supplier 5 0.72

Supplier 6 0.71

Supplier 7 0.68

Supplier 8 0.6

84

Supplier 9 0.70

Supplier 10 0.68

The suppliers are ranked depending upon the result obtained above.

Table 4.3 Supplier Ranking

Supplier Ranking

Supplier 5 1

Supplier 6 2

Supplier 9 3

Supplier 1 4

Supplier 4 5

Supplier 10 6

Supplier 7 7

Supplier 3 8

Supplier 8 9

Supplier 2 10

From the above table, we see that supplier 5 has the highest probability of getting

selected with the value of 0.72. Supplier 6 comes second in the list with the value of 0.71,

followed by supplier 9. Here the values obtained for the three suppliers says that it is safest, most

reliable and least risk involved if supplier 5 is selected. Also from the above table we see that

supplier 4, supplier 7 and supplier 10 have the save value of 0.68 but supplier 4 is ranked as 5

85

followed by supplier 10 as 6 and supplier 7 as 7. The reason being that supplier 4 is more

consistent than other 2 suppliers across all the three suppliers selection criteria. That means if

supplier 4 is selected ahead of supplier 10 and supplier 7, that supplier has less risk of getting hit

by any of the selection criteria. The same reason goes for supplier 2 and supplier 8. The

approach involved here is very simple to use and it does not involve any use of software which

might be required if any other approach of analysis is used.

86

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

One of the main reason for the difficulty in supplier selection is that there are many

suppliers available in the pool and the purchasing team focus only on a set of selection criteria. It

is also important to note that there are other parameters that are important in supplier specific and

they need consideration. So, for that reason the panel of experts in the purchasing team come up

with a comprehensive list of supplier selection criteria and they are grouped according to the

relationship among each other and then all the suppliers are evaluated in all the supplier criteria

set. The purpose of this research was to develop a supplier evaluation and selection model which

is very comprehensive and effective. In recent times companies are moving towards reducing the

number of suppliers as it was getting difficult to manage too many suppliers. So, having less

supplier not only increases trust and relationship between the buyer and supplier, it also helps in

better tracking and monitoring the progress of the work. This helps in developing long term

relationship with the supplier which provides overall value to the buyer. If the primary supplier

who is very consistent with the selection criteria is not able to fulfil the requirements then the

purchaser goes for the secondary supplier or the second-choice supplier.

The key highlights of this research are: -

1. The selection of criteria should be done carefully. To do that market feedback and

historical data should be analyzed carefully to generate the probabilities.

2. To fulfil the above point the buyer company must have experts in the field who can

analyze the data carefully and provide very realistic probability values to each

criterion.

3. This approach is cost effective. Smaller companies or companies who do not have big

budget to spend on supplier selection can use this approach.

87

The future work related to this study are as follows: -

1. Environmental criteria or Green aspect in supplier selection should be introduced in

the future study using this approach

2. Other secondary criteria such as product design, product packaging, warehouse

management among many others should be introduced in future research.

3. In further enhancement of the research, more focus could be given on how different

modes of transportation can be used in effective and cost saving manner.

4. This approach of conditional probability can be used to study the resilience of various

infrastructure sectors from physical infrastructure networks like telecommunication to

service networks like emergency services.

5. Also, the interaction of above two networks can play an important role in serving

community network.

88

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Fischer, G. W., Wei, Y., & Dontamsetti, S. (1989). Process-controlled machining of gray

cast iron. Journal of Mechanical Working Technology, 20, 47-57.

2. Fisher, M. L., Hammond, J. H., Obermeyer, W. R., & Raman, A. (1994). Making supply

meet demand in an uncertain world. Harvard Business Review, 72, 83-83.

3. Ganeshan, R., & Harrison, T. P. (1995). An introduction to supply chain management.

Department of Management Science and Information Systems, Penn State University, 2-

7.

4. SCC, Supply-Chain Council. Supply-Chain Operations Reference Model (2000a). 4.

Pittsburgh, PA.

5. Riggs, D. A., & Robbins, S. L. (1997). The executive’s guide to supply management

strategies. New York, AMACOM. NY: AMOCOM-American Management Association.

6. Riggs, D. A., & Robbins, S. L. (1998). The Executive’s Guide to Supply Management

Strategies. New York, AMACOM.

7. Goffin, K., Szwejczewski, M., & New, C. (1997). Managing suppliers: when fewer can

mean more. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,

27(7), 422-436.

8. Noci, G. (1997). Designing ‘green’vendor rating systems for the assessment of a

supplier's environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply

Management, 3(2), 103-114.

9. Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2002). A model for strategic supplier selection. Journal of

Supply Chain Management, 38(1), 18-28.

89

10. LaLonde, B. J. (1998). Supply chain evolution by the numbers. Supply Chain

Management Review, 21, 7-8.

11. Choi, T. Y., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection practices across

the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 14(4), 333-343.

12. Wu, T. and O’Grady, P. (2000a). A network based approach to integrated supply chain

design. Department of Industrial Engineering. University of Iowa.

http://www.iil.ecn.uiowa.edu/Intemetlab.

13. Thomas, D. J., & Griffin, P. M. (1996). Coordinated supply chain management. European

journal of operational research, 94(1), 1-15.

14. Ghobadian, A. Stainer, A. and Kiss, T.(1993). A computerized vendor rating system.

Proceedings 1st Internet Symposium Logistics. 321-328.

15. Tyndall, G., Gopal, C., Partsch, W., & Kamauff, J. (1998). Ten strategies to enhance

supplier management. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 17(3), 31-44.

16. Krajewski, L. J., & Ritzman, L. P. (1996). Operations Management - Strategy and

Analysis, Addison Wesley. Reading, MA.

17. Fawcett, S. E., & Fawcett, S. A. (1995). The firm as a value-added system: integrating

logistics, operations and purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management, 25(5), 24-42.

18. Giunipero, L. C., & Brand, R. R. (1996). Purchasing's role in supply chain management.

The International Journal of Logistics Management, 7(1), 29-38.

19. Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural

modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(6),

52-59.

90

20. Monczka, R. M., Trent, R.J., & Handfield, R. B. (2015). Purchasing and Supply Chain

Management. Cengage Learning. South-Western, Cincinnati.

21. Ellram, L. M., & Carr, A.S. (1994). Strategic purchasing: a history and review of the

literature. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 30(2), 10-18.

22. Cavinato, J.L. (1994). Sourcing and Supplier Management, In: Robeson, J.F. Copacino,

W.C. (Eds.). The Logistics Handbook. The Free Press, NY, 411- 426.

23. Ghodsypour, S. H., & O'Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier

selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming.

International Journal of Production Economics, (56-57), 199-212.

24. Gietzmann, M. B. (1996). Incomplete contracts and the make or buy decision:

governance design and attainable flexibility. Accounting, Organizations and Society,

21(6), 611-626.

25. Willis, T. H., Huston, C. R., & Pohlkamp, F. (1993). Evaluation measures of just-in-time

supplier performance. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 34(2), 1-5.

26. Chuang, C. L. (2004). Supplier selection and order allocation in supply chain

management (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa).

27. Degraeve, Z., & Roodhooft, F. (1999). Effectively selecting suppliers using total cost of

ownership. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(4), 5-10.

28. Degraeve, Z., & Roodhooft, F. (1999). Improving the efficiency of the purchasing

process using total cost of ownership information: The case of heating electrodes at

Cockerill Sambre SA. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(1), 42-53.

29. De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier

selection. European journal of purchasing & supply management, 7(2), 75-89.

91

30. Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and

development. International Journal of Production Economics, 63, 87-105.

31. Swaminathan, J. M., Sadeh, N. M., & Smith, S. F. (1995). Information Exchange in the

Supply Chain (No. CMU-RI-TR-95-36). Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Robotics

Inst.

32. Vonderembse, M. A., & Tracey, M. (1999). The impact of supplier selection criteria and

supplier involvement on manufacturing performance. Journal of Supply Chain

Management, 35(3), 33-39.

33. Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in supply chain management. Industrial

Marketing Management, 29, 65-83.

34. Bensaou, M. (1999). Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 40(4), 35.

35. Imrie, R., & Morris, J. (1992). A review of recent changes in buyer-supplier relations.

Journal of Management Science, 20, 641-652.

36. Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (1997). Supplier relationships: emerging issues and

challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 91-100.

37. Kesseler, A. (1996). Evolution of supplier relations in European automotive industry:

product development challenge for a first-tier supplier. Paper presented at the GERPISA

Conference, Paris.

38. Foster, T. A. (1992). The multiple benefit of single sourcing LTL. Distribution, 91, 38-

46.

39. Gordon, J. (1991). And Then There Was One. Distribution, 90, 49-53.

92

40. Jayaraman, V., Srivastava, R., & Benton, W. C. (1999). Supplier selection and order

quantity allocation: a comprehensive model. Journal of Supply Chain Management,

35(1), 50-58.

41. Jahnukainen, J. Lahti, M. and Virtanen, T. Toimittajayhteistyo tilausohjautuvissa

toimitusketjuissa. (1997) Helsinki: Metalliteollisuuden Kustannus Oy.

42. Handfield, R. B., Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Monczka, R. M. (2000). Avoid the

Pitfalls in Supplier Development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 37-49.

43. Emshwiller, J. R. (1991). Suppliers struggle to improve quality as big firms slash their

vendor rolls. Wall Street Journal, 17.

44. Aamer, A. M. (2005). Suppliers evaluation and selection: a comprehensive model to

minimize the risk associated with quality and delivery.

45. Weber, C. A., Current, J., & Desai, A. (2000). An optimization approach to determining

the number of vendors to employ. Supply Chain management: An International Journal,

5(2), 90-98.

46. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and

methods. European journal of operational research, 50(1), 2-18.

47. Sagar, M. K., & Singh, D. (2012). Supplier selection criteria: Study of automobile sector

in India. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 4(4), 34-39.

48. Zhang Zhiming, Lei Jiasu, Cao Ning, To Kinman, Ng Kengpo (2004) ―Evolution of

supplier selection criteria and methods‖ (Hong Kong: Institute of Textile And Clothing,

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong En School Of Economic And

Management, Tsinghua University, Bei Jing), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 1,

93

49. Chan, F. T.S. (2003). Performance measurement in a supply chain. The International

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 21(7), 534-548.

50. Varshney, R., Gupta, P., & Schaumburg, I. L. (2002). Road to Growth and Profitability

Starts with Effective Supplier Relationship Management. In the Proceedings of SMTA

International Conference, September 2002.

51. Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2013). Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian

networks. Crc Press.

52. Jensen, F. V. (1996). Bayesian networks basics. AISB quarterly, 9-22.

53. Hosseini, S., & Barker, K. (2016). Modeling infrastructure resilience using Bayesian

networks: A case study of inland waterway ports. Computers & Industrial Engineering,

93, 252-266.

54. Hosseini, S., & Barker, K. (2016). A Bayesian network model for resilience-based

supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 180, 68-87.

55. Soni, U., & Jain, V. (2011, December). Minimizing the vulnerabilities of supply chain: A

new framework for enhancing the resilience. In Industrial Engineering and Engineering

Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 933-939). IEEE.

56. Soni, U., Jain, V., & Kumar, S. (2014). Measuring supply chain resilience using a

deterministic modeling approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 74, 11-25.

57. Barroso, A. P., Machado, V. H., & Machado, V. C. (2011, December). The resilience

paradigm in the supply chain management: a case study. In Industrial Engineering and

Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 928-

932). IEEE.

94

58. Al Salem, A. A. (2012). An Integrated Model for Supplier Quality Evaluation (Doctoral

dissertation, Concordia University).

59. Ravindran, A. R., Ufuk Bilsel, R., Wadhwa, V., & Yang, T. (2010). Risk adjusted

multicriteria supplier selection models with applications. International Journal of

Production Research, 48(2), 405-424.

60. Espino, N., Romo, D., Tseng, B., & Pineda, R. (2013, January). Novel Predictive Risk-

Based Algorithm For Data-Driven Surveillance Frequency of Suppliers. In IIE Annual

Conference. Proceedings (p. 3404). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).

61. (n.d.). Retrieved August 03, 2017, from http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-

98/101/condprob.htm

62. Gut, A. (2013). Probability A Graduate Course: A Graduate Course.

63. Smith, E. D. (2006). Tradeoff studies and cognitive biases.

64. Stevens, G. C. (1989). Integrating the supply chain. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Materials Management, 19(8), 3-8.

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/condprob.htm

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/condprob.htm

95

CURRICULUM VITA

Anand Raj was born on June 5th, 1984 in Bokaro Steel City, India. He did his bachelor of

engineering from Visveswaraiah Technological University in 2009 and completed his MBA

from Christ University in 2012. Before Joining UTEP in August 2015, he worked in sales and

marketing with Wipro Technologies. He did his Master’s in Industrial Engineering which he

completed in August 2017. During his stay at UTEP, he worked as Teaching Assistant and

Research Assistant.

Contact Information: [email protected]

This thesis/dissertation was typed by Anand Raj.

Documents

Supplier Evaluation And Selection In Automotive Industry