Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, May 29-31, 2006: 1382-1401

Sakarya University, Department of Industrial Engineering

Supplier Selection with Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy AHP

Cemalettin Kubat (*), Baris Yuce (*)
*Department of Industrial Engineering, Sakarya Universty, Sakarya, Turkey

Abstract
Nowadays, within new important strategies for production price and quality,
supplier plays a key role in the corporate competition. Because of this reason, supplier
selection must be considerate for all corporate. Supplier selection may include a multi
criteria problem which includes both qualitative and quantitative factors for example
purchase cost, quality level, supplier risk etc... Selecting best supplier is necessary to
make a trade off between tangible and intangible factors. In this work we suggested to
integrate Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Fuzzy AHP and Genetic Algorithm (GA) to
determine best suppliers. Fuzzy set will be utilized linguistic factor to organize criteria and
sub criteria weight, with pair wise compare with fuzzy AHP; it will be utilized to organize all
factors and which assigned weighting for related factor. Finally, a hypothetical supplier
selection problem will be solved by proposed (GA) algorithm.
Keywords: Fuzzy Logic; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Genetic Algorithms
1. Introduction
Supplier selection decisions are an important tool for achieving corporate
competition. In most industries the cost of raw materials and component parts constitutes
the main cost of a product, such that in some cases it can account for up to 70% [1]. Since
different factories supply under different supplier parameter, such as total cost, service
level, quality rate, on time delivery etc… selection of supplier and allocation of demand
really become a hard problem. Such that manner, corporate purchasing department play a
key and vital role. Several conflicting factors affect supplier selection conditions. Also they
affect supplier performance. Because of these circumstances, our model has to translate
a Multi criteria decision making problem [2]. Stamm and Golhar [3], Ellram [4] and Roa
and Kiser [5] identified, respectively, 13, 18, and 60 criteria for supplier selection. Since
supplier selection problem a multiple criteria problem, it requires to trade off between
tangible and intangible factors to find best supplier.
In this paper, firstly, we use fuzzy AHP for uncertain weight which are linguistic
expressions; then, determined each of suppliers’ weight by using identified factors; finally,
determined best supplier by using Genetic Algorithm for each of part order.
We organized this paper as follows. The section 2 gives literature knowledge about
supplier selection. In section 3 defined Fuzzy AHP and determine criteria weight by
entropy .In section 4 defined Genetic Algorithm In section 5 defined problem descriptions.
In section 6 generate a model with Fuzzy AHP and GA In section 7 give an example
model for Multi Source Supplier Selection. In section 7.1 define a numerical example
and solution. In section 8 concluded about supplier selection problem. In section 9 defined
references.
2. Literature review
The literature in this area discusses both single sourcing and multiple sourcing.
Based on this idea there are two kind of supplier selection process and two kind of aim
such as;
1. Single Sourcing: In single sourcing model, the constraints are not considered by
purchasing officer. That mean, all supplier can satisfy the buyer’s requirement of
demand, quality, delivery time and the specs. At that point, the purchase officer
makes only one decision, which one is the best supplier.
2. Multiple Sourcing: In that type process, there is some limitation such as, supplier
cost, supplier capacity, supplier quality or the buyer needs to purchase some part
of demand from one supplier and the other etc… At these conditions the officer,
make two decisions, the first one ,which is the best supplier and second one, how
many percent of order should be respond by selected supplier?
The vast majority of the decision models applied to the supplier selection are linear
weighting models, fuzzy AHP approach and mathematical programming model.
2.1. Fuzzy AHP Approach Model
Fuzzy set theory has proven advantages within uncertain and imprecise condition. Fuzzy
set theory resembles as human reasoning in the use of approximate information and use
linguistic expressions for solving uncertainty. In supplier selection processes, suppliers’
weights are given fuzzy number; we can use fuzzy set rules for fuzzy weights turn to
certain number.
Generally , in supplier selection problem ,some researcher use fuzzy set theory with AHP
such as Felix T. S. Chan and Niraj Kurman [6]or fuzzy with multi objective problem such
as A. Amid ,S.H. Ghodsypour and C. O’Brien.[2]
2.2Linear weighting models
In linear weighting models, weights are given to the criteria, the biggest weight indicating
the highest importance rating on the criteria are multiplied by their weights and summed in
order to obtain a single score for each supplier [7].

1383
2.3. Mathematical programming models
In mathematical programming, decision maker has one or more than objective. Decision
maker wants to be satisfied from all objectives. Some times, we can not have any efficient
model for supplier selection because of the intractable factor. So we need to use heuristic
method or another alternative usage is using mathematical method with AHP.
2.4. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP):
AHP is developed by Saaty[8] . It is a well proven multi-attribute decision making
methodology, especially powerful for those complex problems with asset of highly
interrelated factors [9-10]. With a pool of potential options, AHP make pair comparison
and helps to determine which alternative is the better than the other criteria. If there is not
any constraint for problem, AHP is enough for making decision. such as, single source
which is mentioned in this article. In Fig.3 we can see the hierarchic structure of the
supplier selection’s factors. If the value for alternative I and j are respectively wi and w j ,

the preference of alternative is

i to j is equal to wi / w j .Hence the pairwise comparison matrix is;

w1 / w1 w1 / w2 ……. w1 / wn ,

w2 / w1 w2 / w2 ……. w2 / wn ,

wn / w1 wn / w2 ……. wn / wn ,
As this matrix is consistent the weight of each element is its relative normalized amount
[11]:
wi
Weight of ith element = n

∑w
i =1
i

The priority of alternative i to j for negative criteria, such as cost, is equal to w j / wi , then

the pairwise comparison matrix is;

As this matrix is also consistent, the weights of elements are the normalized amount of
any columns, which is equal to the inverse normalized amount of the alternatives:
1
w
Weight of ith element (for negative criteria) = n i [12]
1
∑
i =1 wi

1384
3. Fuzzy AHP

Fuzzy set theory has proven advantages within fuzzy , imprecise and uncertain
manner and looks like as human reasoning in its use of approximate information and
uncertainty to generate decisions. Fuzzy set theory implements classes and grouping of
data with boundaries that are not sharply defined (i.e. fuzzy). In conventional, AHP, the
pairwise comparison is established using a nine-point scale which converts the human
preferences between available alternatives as equally, moderately, strongly, very strongly
or extremely preferred. Even though the discrete scale of AHP has the advantages of
simplicity and ease of use, it is not sufficient to take into account the uncertainty
associated with the mapping of one’s perception to a number [13]. The linguistic
assessment of human feelings and judgements are vague and it is not reasonable to
represent it in terms of precise numbers. It feels more confident to give interval
judgements than fixed value judgements. Hence, triangular fuzzy numbers are used to
decide the priority of one decision variable over other. Synthetic extent analysis method is
used to decide the final priority weights based on triangular fuzzy numbers and so-called
as fuzzy extended AHP (FEAHP) [6].The FEAHP is the fuzzy extension of AHP to
efficiently handle the fuzziness of the data involved in the decision of best global supplier.
It is easier to understand and it can effectively handle both qualitative and quantitative
data in the multi-attribute decision making problems. We used in this article triangular
fuzzy number shown as

fig 1.A Fuzzy triangulars membership function

µA

Al ( y ) Ar ( y)

a1 a2 a3 A

A fuzzy set [14,15] is characterized by a membership function, which assigns to each

object a grade of membership ranging between 0 and 1. In this set the general terms
such as “large”, “medium”, and “small” each will be used to capture a range of numerical
values.

1385
A fuzzy number is a special fuzzy set, such that;
M = {x, µ M ( x), x ∈ R} where the x value is lies on the R 1 i.e. − ∞ ≤ x ≤ ∞ and µ M (x) is
continious from R 1 to close interval[0,1]. And µ M (x) is defined each fuzzy numbers
membership function ,which is shown as eq.1 [6].

 ( x − a1 ) /(a 2 − a1 ) a1 ≤ x ≤ a 2

µ M ( x) = (a3 − x) /(a3 − a 2 ) a 2 ≤ x ≤ a3 Eq.1.
 0 otherwise


3.1 Calculation Each of AHP’s value by Fuzzy AHP Model

If object set is denoted by P= {p1 , p 2 ........ p n } and the objective set is denoted by

Q= {q1 , q 2 ........q n } then according to extended concept analysis [16] each object is taken

and extend analysis for each objective Oi is performed, respectively. Hence the m extent
analysis values for each object are obtained with thefollowing signs:
A1oi , A 2 oi ,.... A m oi i=1,2, ....,n, A k oi k=(1,2,...m) are triangular fuzzy numbers. The value of
fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the ith object is defined as eq.2.;
−1
m
 n m 
Fi = ∑ A k
oi ⊗ ∑∑ A k oi  eq.2.
k =1  i =1 k =1 
m
The value of ∑A
k =1
k
oi can be found by performing the fuzzy addition operation of m extent

analysis values from a particular matrix shown as eq.3.;

m
 m m m

∑
k =1
A k
oi =  ∑
 k =1
a1k ∑ 2 k ∑ a 3 k 
,
k =1
a ,
k =1 
eq.3

n m
And the value of ∑∑ A
i =1 k =1
k
oi is shown as eq.4.

n m
 n n n

∑∑ A
i =1 k =1
k
oi =

∑ a , ∑ a ,∑ a
i =1
1k
i =1
2k
i =1
3k 

eq.4.

Because of eq.2 , we shold tranformed eq.4 such eq.5.

 
 
 1 , 1 , 1  eq.5.
 n n n 
 ∑ 3k ∑ 2 k ∑ a1k
a a 
 i =1 i =1 i =1 

1386
the degree of possibility of A 1 = {a11 , a12 , a13 } ≥ A2 = {a 21 , a 22 , a 23 } is defined as

[
V ( A1 ≥ A2 ) = sup min(µ A1 ( x), µ A 2 ( x))
x≥ y
] when a pair (x,y) exists such that x ≥ y and

µ A ( x) = µ A2 ( y ) = 1 then we have V ( A1 ≥ A2 ) =1 .eq.6

1

Since A 1 and A 2 convex number. If a11 ≥ a 22 then V ( A1 ≥ A2 ) =1 and V ( A2 ≥ A1 ) then

V ( A2 ≥ A1 ) = hgt ( A1 ∩ A2 ) = µ A1 (d ) where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection

point. D between µ A1 and µ A 2 . When A 1 A 1 = (a11 , a12 , a13 ) and A2 = (a 21 , a 22 , a 23 ) so we

compute the degree of possibility such as;

a11 − a 23
V ( A2 ≥ A1 ) = hgt ( A1 ∩ A2 ) = eq.7
(a 22 − a 23 ) − (a12 − a11 )
For the comprasion of A 1 and A 2 , both the value of V ( A1 ≥ A2 ) and V ( A2 ≥ A1 ) are
required.The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than j convex
fuzzy numbers A i (i = 1, 2, . . . , j) can be defined by

[ ]
V ( A ≥ A1 , A2 ,.... A j ) = V ( A ≥ A1 ) and ( A ≥ A2 ) and .......( A ≥ A j ) =

min( A ≥ Ai ) , i = 1, 2, . . . , k. eq.8.

if m(P i ) = min V ( Fi ≥ F j ) , eq.9

for j = 1, 2, . . . , n; j ≠ i. then the weight vector is given by W P = (m( P1 ), m( P2 ),...m( Pn )) T

where Pi = (i = 1,2,...n) are n elements. After normalizing W P , we get the normalized

weight vectors W = (m( P1 ), m( P2 ),...m( Pn )) T where W is a non-fuzzy number and this

gives the priority weights of one alternative over other.[6]

4. Genetic Algorithm
Genetic Algorithm (GA) is one of modern heuristic technique, which has been
widely adopted by many researchers in solving various problems. GA was developed by
John Holland in 1960. A GA works with a population of individual strings (chromosomes),
each representing a possible solution to a given problem. Each chromosome (individual)
is assigned a fitness value according to the result of the fitness (or objective) function.
Such highly fit chromosomes will survive more frequently than other in the population, and
they are given more opportunities to reproduce and the offspring (child) share features
taken from their parents. It is a heuristic optimization algorithm, which imitate the natural
genetic evolution’s mechanism. If there is big solution space for problem, we can use GA
for solving the problem. Genetic algorithm is a search method in solution space. It work

1387
such as; firstly determine an initial solution pool, each solution is named chromosome.
And each chromosome is formed by genes which are one of problems attributes.
Generally, the initial pool generated randomly [17].
5. Problem description
In this article, we discussed about more factors which affected decision makers’ stability.
In production configuration, the finished product is usually composed of many parts. Each
of parts can be provided by different suppliers, which can be different location. Another
problem is tangible and intangible factors and all these factors have conflict
circumstances. Hence these condition, our processes follow these steps;

1. By the fuzzy AHP, we determine factors weight from linguistic expression and
Determined each supplier weight and final criteria weight by AHP;
2. Searched the best supplier and determined order quantity of that supplier with
GA.
We can see that proposed methodology of problem in fig.2. step by step.

Fig2. The algorithm of the proposed method

Create initial pool’s

population size
Supplier Evoulation
• Set crosover rate
• Set mutation rate
• Set terminatination
rule; generation size,
Data collect time etc...

Generation i

Fuzzy set Yes

Determine weight of each Stop
theory criterias and subcriterias
No
Evaluate
Determined final
criteras for each supplier by Reproduct
Fuzzy AHP
Crossover

Mutation
Genetic
Determine the best Algorithm
supplier and quantity Genaration i+1

Stop

1388
 6. Generate a model with Fuzzy AHP and GA
Firstly; we must determine which criteria affect to our supplier selection process.
We determine main and sub criteria in Fig 3.
Fig.3. Hierarchy for Supplier Selection

Supplier Evoulation and

Selection

Cost Quality Service Supplier Risk Factor

(C1) (C2) Performance Profile (C5)
(C3) (C4)

C21 C22 C31 C32 C41 C42 C51 C52

C23 C33 C34 C43 C53

Suppler 1 Suppler 2 Suppler 3 Suppler 4 Suppler 5 Suppler 6

We can see some criteria at figure3. which have sub criteria. Firstly, we should determine
each criterion’s weight, use pairwise comparison between each of criteria by Fuzzy AHP.
We have linguistic variable for each criteria. And we must transform each of them to the
numeric value .Our Scales is shown on table.1. For our model it shown as (Fuzzy number)
on table 1.2.3.4.5.6 then We determined each criteria’s and sub criteria’s final weight
Finally the used each crisp value for determined best suppliers and its assignment rate by
using A[6].
We presume that our purchase order is inspect the all candidate supplier and after
evaluation, they give score to them and each of score is constituted each linguistic value’s
membership function parameters. It shown on table1. We signified Saaty’s 1-9 scales in
fuzzy set.

1389
Table .1 Each of membership functions’ parameter for Saaty’s scale
Linguistic Expressions a1 a2 a3
Equal 1 1 2
Equal -Moderate 1 2 3
Moderate 2 3 4
Moderate- Fairly Strong 3 4 5
Fairly Strong 4 5 6
Fairly Strong- Very Strong 5 6 7
Very Strong 6 7 8
Very Strong- Absolute 7 8 9
Absolute 8 9 9

Table.2 Fuzzy number for each main criterion.

Criteria MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 MC 4 MC 5 Weight

MC 1 (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (3,4,5) 0,416

MC 2 (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (3,4,5) 0.341

MC 3 (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/5,1/4,1/3) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) 0.162

MC 4 (1/5,1/4,1/3) (1/5,1/4,1/3) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) 0.017

MC 5 (1/5,1/4,1/3) (1/5,1/,4,1/3) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) 0.064

The each main criteria are defined in fuzzy set respectively ; F 1 , F 2 , F 3 , F 4 , F 5

F 1 =(11,15, 19) ⊗ ( 1/53.347,1/ 41.927, 1/31.4)= (0.206, 0.357, 0.605)

F 2 =(9.25, 12.34 , 15.5) ⊗ ( 1/53.347,1/ 41.927, 1/31.4)= (0.1734, 0.294, 0.4936)

F 3 =(5.45, 7.58, 10.01) ⊗ ( 1/53.347,1/ 41.927, 1/31.4)= (0.102, 0.18, 0.318)

F 4 =(3.65, 4.84, 6.167) ⊗ ( 1/53.347,1/ 41.927, 1/31.4)= (0.068,0.1154, 0.1964)

F 5 =(1.9, 2.167, 2.67) ⊗ ( 1/53.347,1/ 41.927, 1/31.4)= (0.0356, 0.051, 0.085)

The degree of possibility of F i over F k k ≠ i can be determined in eg.6 -8.

V ( F1 ≥ F2 ) =1 , V ( F1 ≥ F3 ) =1 , V ( F1 ≥ F4 ) = 1 , V ( F1 ≥ F5 ) =1;

 0.206 − 0.4936 
V ( F2 ≥ F1 ) =   =0.82 ; V ( F2 ≥ F3 ) =1 V ( F2 ≥ F4 ) =1 ;
 (0.294 − 0.4936) − (0.357 − 0.206) 
V ( F2 ≥ F5 ) =1 , V ( F3 ≥ F1 ) =0.39 ; V ( F3 ≥ F2 ) =0.56 ; V ( F3 ≥ F4 ) =1 ; V ( F3 ≥ F5 ) =1
V ( F4 ≥ F1 ) =0.041 ; V ( F4 ≥ F2 ) =0.07255; V ( F4 ≥ F3 ) =0.594 ; V ( F4 ≥ F5 ) =1
V ( F5 ≥ F1 ) = 0.65; V ( F5 ≥ F2 ) = 0.57; V ( F5 ≥ F3 ) =0.151 ; V ( F5 ≥ F4 ) =0.509

1390
M(C 1 )= min { V ( F1 ≥ F2 ) , V ( F1 ≥ F3 ) , V ( F1 ≥ F4 ) , V ( F1 ≥ F5 ) }=min{1,1,1,1}=1 the same way
M(C 2 )= 0.82 ; M(C 3 )=0.39; M(C 4 )=0.041 ; M(C 5 )=0.151
T
Hence the weight vektor of main criteria W C ={1,0.82,0.39,0.041,0.151} . Now we must

normalised each of criteria, because we want to show total of that criteria =1. So if Normalised
them; each of ourr criteria’s weight is respectively; W C ={0,416 , 0.341 , 0.162 , 0.017,
T
0.064} found; Used the same way, we determined each other sub criteria’s weight , which is
shown as table 3,4,5,6
Table.3 Fuzzy number of Quality factor’s Subcriteria.
SubCriteria SC 21 SC 22 SC 23 Weight

SC 21 (1,1,1) (4,5,6) (1/4,1/3,1/2) 0.512

SC 22 (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,1,1) (1,2,3) 0.150

SC 23 (2,3,4) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) 0.338

Table.4 Fuzzy number of Service Performance factor’s Subcritearia.

SubCriteria Weight
SC 31 SC 32 SC 33 SC 34

(1,1,1) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) 0.520

SC 31

(2,3,4) (1,1,1) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,2,3) 0.198

SC 32

(1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,2,3) (1,1,1) (1/3,1/2,1) 0.125

SC 33

(1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,2,3) (1,1,1) 0.157

SC 34

Table.5 Fuzzy number of Supplier Profile factor’s Subcritearia.

SubCriteria Weight
SC 41 SC 42 SC 43

(1,1,1) (2,3,4) (1,1,2) 0.686

SC 41

(1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) 0.157

SC 42

(1/2,1,1) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) 0.157

SC 43

Table.6 Fuzzy number of Risk factor’s Subcritearia.

SubCriteria Weight
SC 51 SC 52 SC 53

(1,1,1) (4,5,6) (1/4,1/3,1/2) 0.512

SC 51

(1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,1,1) (1,2,3) 0.150

SC 52

(2,3,4) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) 0.338

SC 53

1391
 7. An Example Model for Multi Source Supplier Selection
To demonstrate the ability of this proposed article considering the product part
change , it is applied an example idea which is affected by an some researcher , who are
H.S Wang and Z.H.Che.[19].Our product tree is seem in figure 4.(Each of part composed
1 subpart.)

Fig.4. Showed R’s product tree.

T W X Y Z

We interested in X half product, which is composed five purchasing material in fig.5.

Fig.5. Shows X half product’s product tree

A B C D E

.
In table 7. we can see that X’s parts and whose appropriate suppliers are shown.

Table7.Each parts and Suppliers

A B C D E
Supplier 1,2,3 Supplier 1,2,4 Supplier 5 Supplier3,5 Supplier4,5

1392
 Table8.Supplier’s Quantitative Information
Sup. Cost ($) Technical Defect Reliability Flexibility On time delivery Response
(*) Level(Fuzzy) Rate(%) Rate (%) (Rate)(%) (Rate)(%) (**) (Rate)(%)
Scale (*) (*) (**) (**) (**)
S1 A 5 Moderate 0.05 0.85 0.60 0.90 0.70

B 3 Strong 0.02 0.90 0.50 0.85 0.60

S2 A 3.5 Fairly Strong 0.02 0.95 0.50 0.90 0.90

B 2.5 Strong 0.03 0.95 0.40 0.90 0.80

S3 A 4 Strong 0.03 0.90 0.60 0.80 0.80

D 6 Very strong 0.06 0.75 0.70 0.87 0.80

S4 B 4 Moderate 0.04 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.85

E 5 Fairly Strong 0.03 0.90 0.40 0.90 0.80

S5 C 5 Absolute 0.02 0.95 0.30 0.98 0.825

D 5 Strong 0.03 0.95 0.30 0.90 0.65

E 6 Fairly Strong 0.04 0.85 0.45 0.80 0.75

Sup. Cominac. Financial Supplier Supplier Geograph. Machine Status Worker

Status Status Capacity Experien. Status (Fuzzy) (*) Status
(Fuzzy) (**) (Fuzzy) (**) (Part) (Year)(**) (Fuzzy) (*) (Fuzzy) (*)
S1 A Absolute Moderate 800 5 Very Absolute Moderate
strong
B Strong Strong 500 5 Moderate Fairly Strong- Strong
Very Strong

S2 A Strong Very strong 400 10 Strong Moderate Strong

B Strong Very strong 1000 7 Moderate Fairly Strong- Very strong

Very Strong
S3 A Very strong Strong 1000 6 Fairly Fairly Strong Very strong
Strong
D Strong Moderate 1200 3 Very Moderate Strong
strong
S4 B Very strong Very Strong 400 2 Very Strong Moderate
Strong
E Moderate Moderate 600 1 Strong Moderate Strong

S5 C Very Strong Absolute 1500 1 Absolute Absolute Absolute

D Moderate Moderate 500 10 Moderate Moderate Absolute

E Moderate Absolute 1000 4 Fairly Fairly Strong- Absolute

Strong- Very Strong
Very
strong

1393
 1
(*) , (**) w i .
wi n

∑
n
1
wi
∑w
i =1
i =1

Table 9. Each supplier weight for priority weight of Part A

PartA MC1 MC2 MC3

Criter. Main SC21 SC22 SC23 Criter. Main SC31 SC32 SC33 SC34 Criter. Main
Weight Criter. Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
Weight Weight Weight

0,416 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.341 0.520 0.198 0.125 0.157 0.162

Sup1 0.473 0.196 0.510 0.460 0.170 0.387 0.132 0.470 0.080 0.360 0.431 0.373 0.060

Sup2 0.262 0.108 0.290 0.330 0.420 0.340 0.116 0.135 0.612 0.430 0.524 0.327 0.053

Sup3 0.265 0.110 0.200 0.210 0.410 0.273 0.093 0.395 0.308 0.210 0.045 0.300 0.048

PartA MC4 MC5 Total

Criter.

SC41 SC42 SC43 Criter. Main SC51 SC52 SC53 Criter. Main Weight

Weight Criter. Weight Criter.

0.686 0.157 0.157 0.017 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.064

Sup1 0.510 0.460 0.170 0.448 0.076 0.250 0.540 0.453 0.362 0.023 0.420

Sup2 0.290 0.330 0.420 0.317 0.054 0.410 0.351 0.178 0.323 0.020 0.340

Sup3 0.200 0.210 0.410 0.235 0.004 0.340 0.109 0.369 0.315 0.020 0.140

Table 10. Each supplier’s final weight for each of part units Priority weight for Part B

PartB MC1 MC2 MC3

Criter. Main SC21 SC22 SC23 Criter. Main SC31 SC32 SC33 SC34 Criter. Main
Weight Criter. Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
Weight Weight Weight

0,416 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.341 0.520 0.198 0.125 0.157 0.162
Sup1 0.258 0.107 0.326 0.512 0.375 0.370 0.126 0.651 0.182 0.600 0.431 0.517 0.083

Sup2 0.425 0.176 0.124 0.312 0.264 0.200 0.068 0.135 0.465 0.082 0.524 0.240 0.039
Sup4 0.317 0.132 0.450 0.176 0.361 0.379 0.130 0.214 0.353 0.318 0.045 0.288 0.047

PartB MC4 MC5 Total

Criter.
SC41 SC42 SC43 Criter. Main SC51 SC52 SC53 Criter. Main
Weight
Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
0.686 0.157 0.157 0.017 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.064
Sup1 0.333 0.540 0.178 0.341 0.058 0.345 0.178 0.258 0.290 0.018 0.499

Sup2 0.167 0.124 0.800 0.260 0.042 0.340 0.369 0.654 0.450 0.029 0.317

Sup4 0.500 0.336 0.022 0.400 0.068 0.315 0.453 0.088 0.259 0.016 0.331

1394
Table 11. Each supplier’s final weight for each of part units Priority weight for Part C

PartC MC1 MC2 MC3

Criter. Main SC21 SC22 SC23 Criter. Main SC31 SC32 SC33 SC34 Criter. Main
Weight Criter. Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
Weight Weight Weight

0,416 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.341 0.520 0.198 0.125 0.157 0.162

Sup5 1 0.416 1 1 1 1 0.341 1 1 1 1 1 0.162

PartC MC4 MC5 Total

Criter.

SC41 SC42 SC43 Criter. Main SC51 SC52 SC53 Criter. Main Weight

Weight Criter. Weight Criter.

0.686 0.157 0.157 0.017 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.064

Sup5 1 1 1 1 0.017 1 1 1 1 0.064 1

Table 12. Each supplier’s final weight for each of part units Priority weight for Part D

PartD MC1 MC2 MC3

Criter. Main SC21 SC22 SC23 Criter. Main SC31 SC32 SC33 SC34 Criter. Main
Weight Criter. Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
Weight Weight Weight

0,416 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.341 0.520 0.198 0.125 0.157 0.162

Sup3 0.480 0.200 0.278 0.651 0.500 0.409 0.140 0.470 0.513 0.623 0.578 0.514 0.080

Sup5 0.520 0.216 0.722 0.349 0.500 0.591 0.201 0.530 0.487 0.377 0.422 0.469 0.076
PartD MC4 MC5 Total
Criter.
SC41 SC42 SC43 Criter. Main SC51 SC52 SC53 Criter. Main
Weight
Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
0.686 0.157 0.157 0.017 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.064

Sup3 0.081 0.700 0.500 0.234 0.004 0.478 0.460 0.450 0.465 0.030 0.454

Sup5 0.919 0.300 0.500 0.756 0.013 0.522 0.540 0.550 0.535 0.034 0.546

1395
Table 13 . Each supplier’s final weight for each of part units Priority weight for Part E

PartE MC1 MC2 MC3

Criter. Main SC21 SC22 SC23 Criter. Main SC31 SC32 SC33 SC34 Criter. Main
Weight Criter. Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
Weight Weight Weight

0,416 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.341 0.520 0.198 0.125 0.157 0.162
Sup4 0.462 0.192 0.211 0.578 0.278 0.289 0.099 0.623 0.700 0.465 0.651 0.622 0.061

Sup5 0.538 0.270 0.789 0.422 0.722 0.711 0.242 0.377 0.300 0.535 0.349 0.378 0.101

PartE MC4 MC5 Total

Criter.
SC41 SC42 SC43 Criter. Main SC51 SC52 SC53 Criter. Main
Weight
Weight Criter. Weight Criter.
0.686 0.157 0.157 0.017 0.512 0.150 0.338 0.064

Sup4 0.213 0.815 0.074 0.285 0.004 0.154 0.789 0.215 0.750 0.048 0.404

The Final weight of each criteria and priorty of them seem on table 9-13.
In this article we proposed to compute supplier selection following that, we solve an
example problem for supplier selection;
In our model we have capacity, demand, on time delivery, quality constraints and in our
model we think about wide size Bill Off Material (BOM), so our problem turn a hard
problem we must solve it by genetic algorithm. Our fitness function is equation (10);
In this article , We proposed that a chromosome had composed as fig.6.The first gene
takes only number 1, 2 ,3; the second is 1,2,4 , the third is take only 5 , the fourth is 3, 5
and the fifth is take only 4, 5 because others do not product the other production we can
see in table.7.
We use GA’s the fitness function in Eq.10.and in our model, the crossing over is shown
such as in fig.6 A,B,C,D,E is respectively purchase 1,2,3, 1,2,4 , 5 , 3,5 and 4,5 an
example of our chromosome construct is shown as fig.6 each of arrow define the each
products shows alternative supplier .If each gene include a supplier we shows its number
other we write 0.And all time the biggest supplier is written each parts first member.
Fig.6 Crossing over process

Parent chromosomes Child chromosomes

1 2 0 1 0 4 5 3 5 4 0 1 2 0 2 4 1 5 5 0 5 4

Crossover point

2 1 3 2 4 1 5 5 0 5 4 2 1 3 1 0 4 5 3 5 4 0

1396
Fitness (Objective) Function:
Identify the acceptable solution of the part supplier combination which maximizes the total
supplier’s gain and determine both best supplier and best quantities under the capacity ,
demand , Quality, Delivery constraints.
S i set of suppliers offering item i

K j set of items offered by supplier j

wij final weight of part i for supplier j

q ij defective rate of part i offered by supplier j

Qi the buyer’s maximum acceptable defective rate of item i

t ij on-time delivery rate of part i offered by supplier j

Tij the buyer’s minimum acceptable on-time delivery rate of item i

C ij maximum supply capacity of part i offered by supplier j

Dij total demand of item i

X ij units of part i to purchase from supplier j

N ij order rate of part i to supplier j

n m
Maximize ∑∑ w
i =1 j =i
ij X ij N ij eq.10

Constraints:
Capacity Constraint As supplier j can provide up to C ij units of item i and its order quantity

X ij should be equal or less than capacity such as;

∑X
i∈K j
ji N ij ≤ ∑C
i∈K j
ij j ∈ Si

Demand Constraint:
The total order of each part should be equal i. buyer’s demands;

∑X
j∈S i
ij = ∑D
j∈S i
ij N ij i∈Kj

Quality Constraint:
Since Q i is the buyer’s maximum acceptable defective rate of item i and q ij is the

defective rate of supplier j, the quality constraint can be shown as [7].

1397
∑q
j∈S j
ij X ij N ij ≤ ∑Q
j∈S i
ij Di j

Delivery Constraint: Since T i is the buyer’s minimum acceptable on- time delivery rate of

item i and is the on time delivery rate of supplier j, the delivery constraint can be shown
t ij

as[7].

∑ (1 − t
j∈S j
ij ) X ij ≤ ∑ (1 − T
j∈S i
ij ) Di j

N ij = X ij / ∑ X ij i ∈ K j , j ∈ S i
j∈S Đ

We want to validate the model at hand, because of it a numeric examples is designed

and performed by concrete data[7]. Suppose that five suppliers and five units are allowed
for our computation. In model, we used each data at table.15
7.1. A Numerical example
In this problem the purchase officer wishes to purchase for each part’s best supplier and
allocate order quantities to them; for instance if demand of A, B, C, D, E is1500 units, the
minimum acceptable on time rate of A, B, C, D, E, are respectively 0.85, 0.75, 0.90, 0.85,
0.80 and maximum acceptable defect rate of A, B, C, D, E, are respectively 0.05, 0.02,
0.03, 0.05, 0.04. For each part of X’s supplier seem on the table 14. We use each supplier
weights from table 17. and we use Genetic algorithm for best supplier and allocate best
order quantities to them.

Our fitness function is;

Max Z= 0.42 N 11 X 11 + 0,34 N 12 X 12 + 0,140 N 13 X 13 + 0,499 N 21 X 21 + 0,317 N 22 X 22 + 0,331

N 24 X 24 + N 35 X 35 + 0,454 N 43 X 43 + 0,546 N 45 X 45 + 0,404 N 54 X 54 +0,596 N 55 X 55

N 11 X 11 + N 12 X 12 + N 13 X 13 =1500

N 21 X 21 + N 22 X 22 + N 24 X 24 =1500

N 35 X 35 =1500

N 43 X 43 + N 45 X 45 =1500

N 54 X 54 + N 55 X 55 =1500

X 11 + X 12 + X 13 ≤ 800N 11 + 400 N12 + 1000 N 13

X 21 + X 22 + X 24 ≤ 500N 21 + 1000 N 22 + 400 N 24

X 51 ≤ 1500N 35

1398
X 42 + X 45 ≤ 1200N 43 + 500 N 45

X 54 + X 55 ≤ 600N 54 + 1000 N 55

0.05 N 11 X 11 +0.02 N 12 X 12 +0.03 N 13 X 13 ≤ 75

0.02 N 21 X 21 +0.03 N 22 X 22 +0.04 N 24 X 24 ≤ 30

0.02 N 35 X 35 ≤ 45

0.06 N 43 X 43 +0.03 N 45 X 45 ≤ 75

0.03 N 54 X 54 +0.04 N 55 X 55 ≤ 75

0.15 N 11 X 11 +0.05 N 12 X 12 +0.10 N 13 X 13 ≤ 225

0.10 N 21 X 21 +0.05 N 22 X 22 +0.10 N 24 X 24 ≤ 375

0.05 N 35 X 35 ≤ 150

0.25 N 43 X 43 +0.05 N 45 X 45 ≤ 225

0.10 N 54 X 54 +0.15 N 55 X 55 ≤ 300

N1j = X1j / ∑X
j∈S Đ
1j (j=1,2,3) ; N 2 j = X 2 j / ∑X
j∈S Đ
2j (j=1,2,4) ; N 3 j = X 3 j / ∑X
j∈S Đ
3j (j=5) ;

N4j = X4j / ∑X
j∈S Đ
4j (j=2,5) ; N 5 j = X 5 j / ∑X
j∈S Đ
5j (j =4,5)

X 11 , X 12 ,X 13 , X 21 , X 22 , X 24 ,X 35 ,X 43 , X 45 , X 54 , X 55 ≥ 0

0 ≤ N 11 , N 12 , N 13 , N 21 , N 22 , N 24 , N 35 , N 43 , N 45 , N 54 , N 55 ≤ 1

The solution of GA is determined by using a Genetic Program , and our mutation rate is
0.1 the rossing over rate is 0.9 and population size = 40 in 8minutes and after 267140
iterations we determined follow result and our genetic code, which is shown on fig.7.

X11: 799,990; X12: 397,890; X13: 302,122;X21: 498,792; X22: 778,477; X24: 222,730;
X35: 1499,977; X43: 1106,914; X45: 393,080;X54: 500,592; X55: 999,404; N 11 =0.534,

N 12 =0.265, N 13 =0.201, N 21 =0.332, N 22 =0.519, N 24 =0.149, N 35 =1, N 43 =0.738,

N 45 =0.262; N 54 =0.333; N 55 =0.667

fig.7.Solution Chromosomes

1 2 3 2 1 4 5 2 3 1 2

1399
8. Conclusion

In this article, we discussed an integrated model for supplier selection with using GA and
Fuzzy AHP techniques. Our aimed determined the best supplier and whose optimal
appointment of quantities. We used Fuzzy AHP for determining linguistic expression and
fuzzy weight to transformed crisp weights of each supplier criteria. By using these crisp
weights, we determined the best supplier and optimal order quantity of them with using
GA. We suggested an example, which involve an example product and on that example,
we develop a GA and Fuzzy AHP model for multi factor supplier selection’s problems. By
Using Fuzzy AHP, we transformed each linguistic weight to crisp value and made up a
mathematical model, which called GA’s objective function, for determining best supplier
and order quantity. We use Autofit3.0 program for solving GA model. The Result is shown
in fig 7. We believe that this model a new approach to determining supplier selection.
There are a lot of model for determining best supplier and more of them appropriate for
single source supplier selection problem. Because globalism, increasing business cost,
quality order and etc. factors are directing administrator to decrease their cost and search
different and suitable supplier from different location. And they also consider alternative
supplier each of product’s part, so this problem turn a multi source problem and a complex
structure .Our model is a different approach to this type of problems.

9. References

[l] A. Ghobadian, A. Stainer, T. Kiss, A computerised vendor rating system. Proc. 1st
Internat. Symp. Logistics. 1993. pp. 321-328.
[2] A.Amid, S.H. Ghodsypour,C. O’Brien, Fuzzy multi objective linear model for supplier
selection in a supplier chain Int. journ. of Production economics. 2004.1-14.
[3] C.L. Stamm, D.Y. Golhar, JIT purchasing: Attribute classification and literature review.
Prod. Planning Control. 1993.4(3), 273-282.
[4] L.M. Ellram, The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. J. Purchasing
Mater. Management. 1990. 26(4). 8-14.
[5] C.P. Roa, G.E. Kiser, Educational buyers’ perceptions of vendor attributes. J.
Purchasing Mater. Mgmt.1980.16,25-30.
[6] F. T. S Chan, N.Kumar,Global supplier development considering risk factors using
fuzzy extended AHP based approach. 2004.
[7] W. Xia, Z.Wu Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount
envoirements,The Journal of Management Science, 2004.1-11.

1400
[8] TL. Saaty. The analytical hierarchy process. Newyork :CGraw-Hill; 1980.
[9] A.Teltumbe. A framework for evaluation ERP projects. Int. journal of production
research 2000;38(17):4507-20.
[10] L.R Winkler Decision modeling and rational choice: AHP and utility theory.
Management Science. 1990. 36(3):247-75
[11] T. L. Saaty, J. M Alexander, Thinking With Models: Mathematical Models in the
Phsical Biological and Social Sciences. 1981. Chapter &,Pergamon Press, London
[12] S.H Ghodsypour, C. O’Brien A decision support system for supplier selection using
an integrated analytic hiearshy process and linear programming.1998.Int. Production
Economics 199-212
[13] Kwong CK, Bai H. Determining the importance weights for the customer
requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach IIETransactions
2003;35(7):619–6.
[14] Ross TJ. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co;
1997.
[15] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965;8:338–53.
[16] Chang DY. Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optimization techniques and
applications. vol. 1. Singapore: World Scientific;1992. p. 352.
[17] F.T.S Chan, S.H Chung Multicriterion genetic optimizasion for due date assigned
distrubition network problems, Decison Support Systems.39(2005) 661-675
[18] H. Ding, L. Denyoucef , X. Xie A simulation optimization approach using genetic
search for supplier selection 2003 Winter simulation conference.1260-1267
[19] H.S. Wang , Z.H. Che An integrated model for supplier selection decisions in
configuration changes. 2006 .1-9

1401